MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
How odd it looks, from this side of the Atlantic, that the British might be about to plunge a fatal knife into their prime minister.Just a few weeks ago, Gordon Brown was corralling the rest of the world's leaders in the desperately complicated but desperately needed effort to re-shape global finance. Even today, the conversation here is about how Brown masterfully steered the UK away from catastrophe during last autumn's financial panic, in contrast to the confusion and interminable policy switches of two US administrations.
While the world is just tiptoeing out of this crisis, it looks simply perverse to ditch a leader who took his country unburned through that fire, and who is most engaged in the effort to prevent such a fire from igniting again.
Brown's alleged sluggish response to an expenses scandal that has not touched him personally and is only a few weeks old, his apparent inability to "connect" to the British people on a personal level – these things seem trivial compared to the great issues or failings that should bring down world leaders. It looks from here as if Britain is in the grip of a political anarchy.
It sounds from the headlines of the past few days that Brown would struggle to run the management committee of a church fete, let alone a cabinet and a major world government. But that was not what business and political leaders here saw when he was in New York and Washington in March, laying the groundwork for the G20 economic summit meeting.
Then we saw a man totally on top of his subject, capable of steering not just the UK economy but also the global financial system through the treacherous waters that must be crossed in the next few years. A breakfast audience of Wall Street bigwigs and political grandees expressed surprise not just at the depth of his analysis of what has gone so wrong with global capitalism, but with the number and sophistication of his ideas for reforming the international financial architecture.
There was no sign of the hesitations and sluggishness of which Brown stands accused back in the UK, where every last move of his now seems to be interpreted through that unfair prism.
Discuss 😛
Please God NO!
It is certainly true that his handling of the financial crisis has been far better than many on here would accept and across the globe he is considered to have done well in his financial management.
Unfortunately once the tory press have their hooks into you it is very hard to come back.
This is not to say that he has not had major mistakes - the first of which was not going for a total refresh of the government once he got the prime ministers job. He should have signalled a change in direction at that point with new faces in the cabinet.
I think a part of the issue is also as I have seen many many times - once a government has been in power for more than ten years they simply run out of steam - hence my comments about he should have refreshed the government when he got the job.
*stands back and awaits the stream of vitriol from the Brown haters on here*
Ill add to that that once you have lost the confidence of the people around you and the public at large there is no easy way back either no matter if you deserve the reputation you have got or not
Unfortunately once the tory press have their hooks into you it is very hard to come back.
Tory press getting the hooks in here, TJ....
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/02/editorial-gordon-brown-labour ]
[/url]Labour has a year left before an election; its current leader would waste it. It is time to cut him loose.
O.K. I give up!
The issue here is that Brown is just lucky or unlucky dependant on the geo-political fiscal climate at anyone time. Injecting cash into an economy, printing more banknotes and holding on for grim death are not the hallmarks of great leadership but of a politician and indeed a political system that has been found out. Gone is the 'Iron Chancellor' image and in has come the sad, contemtuous little fact the GB is all at sea in a globilised economy it has little sway over.
Frankly we would be better to build war ships and invade small defenseless countries with savages armed to the teeth with sharpened Guava fruit - at least we would stand a chance!
Brown is being judged, by the braying tory masses, on his personality not on his ability. He's doomed because people don't like him.
To our eternal shame, the Americans seem to have more political and intellectual nous than we do.
I don't see what he's done that he should go for.
Financial crisis caused by US financial institutions was hardly his fault and he handled it reasonably well, everyone who I know in finance thinks so.
And WTF does he have to do with the endemic expenses fiddling, they all appear equally guilty of that.
So i'm kinda lost why people want him out.
Unfortunately once the tory press have their hooks into you it is very hard to come back.
agreed, despite the overall good reputaion of journalistic-ness the uk has, I find it increasingly hard to have any clear idea what our politicians are really like or how ludicrous their actions really are. Though I am sure the few non-tory papers are just as clever in their portrayals of the conservatives.
I don't see what he's done that he should go for.Financial crisis caused by US financial institutions was hardly his fault and he handled it reasonably well, everyone who I know in finance thinks so.
And WTF does he have to do with the endemic expenses fiddling, they all appear equally guilty of that.
So i'm kinda lost why people want him out.
And I'm kinda lost as to what you'd replace him with - they are all freeloading muppets.
This statement...
Brown's alleged sluggish response to an expenses scandal [b]that has not touched him personally[/b]
... call into question the accuracy of the rest of the piece.
And I'm kinda lost as to what you'd replace him with
Completely agree. For the sake of this country I just hope that he can stall a GE for long enough so that people come to their senses and don't install a Tory govt. Even a hung parliament would do.
druidh - what allegations have you heard about Brown over expenses? The thing about his brother and the cleaning was perfectly reasonable once you heard the explanation. Know of owt else?
To our eternal shame, the Americans seem to have more political and intellectual nous than we do.
A similar thing happened after the Wall Street Crash and the start of the Great Depression. The United States swung decisively to the Left, whilst most of the rest of the world (except Scandinavia) swung to the Right. Including of course, the rise of Fascism.
A right-wing reaction is normal during a financial crises, as people panic and think only of their own survival : 'sod everyone else, I'm taking care of myself and my family' sort of attitude.
Of course this solves nothing, and people soon realised that progress can only occur when society pulls together. So when it became obvious that right-wing ideology would never provide the solutions, the world swung to the Left.
By the end of the global recession in the late 30s and early 40s, support for Socialism had reached it's peak.
[b]"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."[/b] - Karl Marx
TJ - You might ask why he should be allowed to claim any sort of 2nd home allowance while is is living in "grace and favour" premises in Downing Street. Legal? - almost certainly. Moral?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
Good point Druidh I don't have any of the details to hand however
Of course you should respect and be grateful to the arsonist who sets fire to your house if he then does a reasonable job of trying to put the blaze out.
despite the overall good reputaion of journalistic-ness the uk has
hee hee, I find this quite amusing - it wasn't a journalist that reckons that is it?!
[i]you might ask why he should be allowed to claim any sort of 2nd home allowance while is is living in "grace and favour" premises in Downing Street.[/i]
Biscuit Powered - MemberOf course you should respect and be grateful to the arsonist who sets fire to your house if he then does a reasonable job of trying to put the blaze out.
Que? It was not browns fault that american banks had got loads of toxic debt was it?
Que? It was not browns fault that american banks had got loads of toxic debt was it
[irony]Of course it was. He's a one eyed Scottish socialist. Everything's his fault.[/irony]
trailmonkey - Member> Que? It was not browns fault that american banks had got loads of toxic debt was it
Of course it was. He's a one eyed Scottish socialist. Everything's his fault.
Enough of that Mr TM. How dare you call him a Socialist.
fair shout
No but its his fault the country was in so much debt going into the crisis that paying off that plus what he's spent on saving the banks will take us the next 30 years to pay off.
He's also spent the last 7 years pouring money into unreformed public services which is the equivalent of trying to pump up a punctured tyre.
Oh and every year he dips his filthy mitts into our pension funds and over the last 10 years has helped himself to 100 billion contributing massively to the decline of a pension system that was the envy of the world whilst the public sector sit on unfunded final salary schemes.
Is that enough to be going on with?
I'm not a fan of politicians, but i'm even less a fan of the media in this country and the way it presents complex issues and politicians. There are a number of issues as i see it:
1 - too many journalists don't understand the the major issues, or at least can't portray their complexity to their readers/viewers/listeners
2 - as a result they either dumb down or go for easy hits. You can see this in how they return to personality issues and the 'Westminster village'.
3 - speaking of which, the going in the Westminster Village get far too much focus, obscuring a) the complexity of major issues and b) the outcomes of government actions.
It is a vicious circle. The important thing in politics, since the early nineties (but increasing every year, is not what you do but how what you do is perceived by, in and through the media. As we all know, this means that the main difference between political parties is how they portray themselves to the media. Brown isn't photogenic or an effective (modern) communicator, Cameron is. However, Brown is so intellectually superior to Cameron it is frightening. Unfortunately that doesn't matter.
This situation is looking like 96-97 all over again. The young, media savvy leader of the opposition is taking lumps out of the government. The big difference, of course, is the size of the Govt. majority and the fact that the Tories have no policies. But that doesn't seem to matter because, as mentioned, Labour looks tired and out of ideas. The battle is who can fake their lack of ideas the best.
I'm not a Labour supporter - never voted for them - but it scares me the Tories might get into power. Look at how lost they were during the financial meltdown. Osbourne is a numpty, he went to his text books to try and understand what has happening. Brown got it, and catalysed action (albeit after a little too long to seem dynamic). Not only do the Tories look lost on the big issues, but they have no substantive policies, just 'flavours' and generalities. But, that doesn't matter because Cameron looked dynamic by kicking out the old Tory guard during the expenses furore. BTW, he did that because of the divisions in the party, not because of their claims.
If the global economy takes an upturn at the turn of the new year, Brown will get the credit he deserves. If it doesn't he and Labour will be gone, and we'll be stuck with a Blair wannabe with no ideas.
Enough rubbish and pish you mean? everything you said in that is wrong - whether in fact or open to alternative interpretations.
No point in debating it with you tho - you mind is obviously closed
No but its his fault the country was in so much debt going into the crisis that paying off that plus what he's spent on saving the banks will take us the next 30 years to pay off.
Debt has increased ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/mar/01/government-borrowing-economy1), but it won't really matter [i]that[/i] much once the economy recovers. A lot of debt will be cleared once the banks we part own get sold off (potentially with a profit), and as long as you can show growth the government will still be able to fund their spending (look at the levels of US debt as an example).
As for public services, it always amazes me how people can forget the state of the NHS and schools in the 1990s. I'm not saying they don't need reform, but they are a lot better than they were.
I'll concede he's a good been counter, but a leader needs to be so much more than that.
Is that enough to be going on with?
You best inform the new US administration of Gordon Brown's economic incompetence uponthedowns.
Because apparently they are highly impressed by him.
Still, what do the yanks know about running a successful capitalist economy, eh uponthedowns ?
1 - too many journalists don't understand the the major issues, or at least can't portray their complexity to their readers/viewers/listeners2 - as a result they either dumb down or go for easy hits. You can see this in how they return to personality issues and the 'Westminster village'.
3 - speaking of which, the going in the Westminster Village get far too much focus, obscuring a) the complexity of major issues and b) the outcomes of government actions.
Hits nail on the head!
The sad thing is, there seems to be an awful lot of thick & ignorant people around who don't, or choose not to, recognise this.
When you are bombarded with one perspective week after week it is hard to recognise it, it becomes hegemonic.
Tories look lost on the big issues, but they have no substantive policies, just 'flavours' and generalities.
That's premature. As has often been said there's no point a Tory party putting forward a detailed "manifesto" until a GE is called and a manifesto can be published that cant get appropriated by the government. When they have brought forward populist proposals (inheritance tax threshold raising), they've been adopted resignedly, by the government to stiffle the blindside.
Once they have produced a manifesto for the next General Election, then Im all for a good ding dong on how shallow/unfunded/fascist etc their policies are.
That's premature. As has often been said there's no point a Tory party putting forward a detailed "manifesto" until a GE is called and a manifesto can be published that cant get appropriated by the government.
You actually buy that argument? What that means is the only tactic the opposition has is to criticise Government policy... that is it: "That is bad, that is wrong, we wouldn't do that." OK, why? And what would you do? That isn't effective opposition, no matter what they and the media say.
And, saying things like 'efficiency savings are required' a) isn't a policy and b) translates as sacking people.
Phew I find the general sentiment of this thread quite refreshing, I've been quite annoyed by the recent kickings browns had, he doesn't have self confidence etc, I want somme one who knows what to do not some smarmy git who's only talent is spin. (not a very well articulated post but I'm busy packing for the alps!)
You actually buy that argument?
TBH I have no idea, as it's one that cant be tested until the next GE.
Also, opposition is to hold to account, not provide detailed policy alternatives. Labour never managed it in opposition either, but they were an excellent opposition because they were always snapping at the heels of the government. Thats certainly where the conservatives have been lacking for the last 12 years until very recently.
b) translates as sacking people.
that's a policy in my book.
Policy 1 - sack people in the NHS. Not sure where, but we'll definitely be making a few thousand unemployed. Best wait until we're the only option to say this, and blame it on Labour. If asked for more specific talk about a targets culture, middle management inefficiency, directing the saving to front line services, and get a photo op with tired looking nurses.
Policy 2 - best wait until there is less than 6 month until the election to think up another... oh, i've got one!
Policy 3 - look young and dynamic.
contributing massively to the decline of a pension system that was the envy of the world
We had a fine pension system once upon a time. It was based around huge numbers of workers paying into a big NI pot. Sadly, someone came along and decided to do away with this huge NI paying workforce and replace it with a smaller workforce many of whom would be self employed sub contractors paying less in the way of NI.
I wonder who's bright idea that was ?
No point in debating it with you tho - you mind is obviously closed
As is yours TJ!
It was based around huge numbers of workers paying into a big NI pot. Sadly, someone came along and decided to do away with this huge NI paying workforce and replace it with a smaller workforce many of whom would be self employed sub contractors paying less in the way of NI.
Guess you mean shipbuilding, coal mining, steel production and car manufacture. Inefficient industries that couldn't survive without subsidy.
National insurance receipts since 2001 (£63bn) have grown to £97bn (prov) in 2009 - driven by tax increases as well as salary increases. A total increase of 56% or 6% pa (compound)
Guess you mean shipbuilding, coal mining, steel production and car manufacture. Inefficient industries that couldn't survive without subsidy.
But we ended up subsidising the same workers by paying them benefits. Keeping the industries going would also keep the communities wealthy and we wouldn't be subsidising the shopkeepers and service staff in benefits either. God we've got some grim times to look forward to if they get back in.
National insurance receipts since [b]2001[/b] (£63bn) have grown to £97bn (prov) in 2009 - driven by tax increases as well as salary increases.
Good to see the present govt. trying to fix the problems created by the old govt. then.
Those industries aren't inherently inefficient, just look at the Nissan plant in Sunderland - aptly in an area that suffered after heavy manufacturing was decimated. And even though some sectors have been privatised - trains - they now recieve a bigger subsidy than under govt ownership!
there's no point a Tory party putting forward a detailed "manifesto" until a GE is called and a manifesto can be published that cant get appropriated by the government.
'Can't get appropriated by the government' ? Why ever not Stoner ?
[i]Surely[/i] if these policies were good for Britain, then Tories would be more than happy for Labour to 'steal them' ?
Or are you saying that the Tories put the interests of their party [i]before[/i] the interests of the country ?
My my Stoner, you have a very low opinion of the Tories 😯
Keeping the industries going would also keep the communities wealthy
Yes it would but it redirects resources away from more productive industry resulting in long term harm to the economy.
Those industries aren't inherently inefficient, just look at the Nissan plant in Sunderland - aptly in an area that suffered after heavy manufacturing was decimated. And even though some sectors have been privatised - trains - they now recieve a bigger subsidy than under govt ownership!
Agree they are not inherently inefficient now. I assumed the poster was blaming the reduction in heavy industry to the Tory's policies of removing subsidies and privatisation during the 70s and 80s.
Yes it would but it redirects resources away from more productive industry resulting in long term harm to the economy.
❓
Surely if these policies were good for Britain, then Tories would be more than happy for Labour to 'steal them' ?
Come on Ernie you can do better than that. You're just trolling now.
So wasting all the oil money on unemployment benefit was better than spending it on supporting and modernising salvageable industry. For example we now have no train manufacturers so if we want to buy new trains we have to buy German or French.
The salvageable bits of those industries were salvaged. Its just they were much smaller than what they replaced.
Que? Oh no it wasn't hence we have no heavy industry left at all - like no train manufacturers.
We have a steel industry and a small coal industry. Land Rover and Jaguar still survive albeit under foreign ownership.
We've also got a large chemical industry a lot of which I'd say was heavy- and with one exception I can think of its never received any subsidy.
For example we now have no train manufacturers so if we want to buy new trains we have to buy German or French.
Really? How about GEC Alsthom? OK its not 100% British but its a 50:50 venture between British GEC and French Alsthom.
Why don't we let the government employ everyone and we can become a communist state ... yipee ! A sure way to bankrupcy,failure along with every other country that has tried it !
The salvageable bits of those industries were salvaged. Its just they were much smaller than what they replaced.
I'm not sure whether to laugh at that or ask you define 'salvage'!
We have a steel industry and a small coal industry. Land Rover and Jaguar still survive albeit under foreign ownership.We've also got a large chemical industry a lot of which I'd say was heavy- and with one exception I can think of its never received any subsidy.
Coal was, and would have been profitable - it was one of the heavy industries that was doing ok, but Thatcher and Scargil saw it off in their war. We'd have much better energy security had we kept more mines open.
Our (well, the North East's) real expertise in chemicals is men in sheds producing high quality chemicals. Unfortunately that isn't a big employer.
So we know the expenses fiddling isn't brown's fault, and even though he and his cronies have had 10 long years to get their finger out and do something about it, they didn't. but now Brown's going to "clean things up" and restore the public's faith in the political system and those who run it. He starts this off by promoting to depute head of the Labour Party one Peter Mandelson who has had to resign after being caught with his fingers in the till, not once, but [b]TWICE[/b]
Well that's my faith restored so it isn't.
Have a look out of your window Capt Jon and you'll probably see the chemical complex at Billingham. Looks plenty heavy to me. Don't have any stats but it must employ a fair number even if it runs efficient continuous processes which don't require much in the way of labour.
but a leader needs to be so much more than that.
Is that being a slick media operator like Blair or Cameron?
I think it's quite true what Mandelson apparently had to say about Brown though:
The memos are understood to state that Mandelson thought Brown was too preoccupied with celebrity gimmicks and should concentrate on “strategic policy formulation” rather than “telling people that you watch The X-Factor”. Only last week the prime minister telephoned to inquire about the health of Susan Boyle, the Britain’s Got Talent runner-up who had been admitted to the Priory suffering from exhaustion.Mandelson also suggested that Brown could not win the next general election unless he brought back more heavy hitters into the cabinet.
The disclosure of the e-mails, which claimed that the prime minister tried too hard to be a “normal” person
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6446325.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=2015164
TandemJeremy - MemberQue? It was not browns fault that american banks had got loads of toxic debt was it?
Oh yes, sorry I need to get on message, it's a *global* problem that started in America.
Dave and John stand next to each other and douse themselves in petrol.
Dave lights a match and goes up in flames.
The fire immediately spreads to John.
Whose fault is it that John is burning?
a - Dave's
b - John's
c - Both of them, they're both morons.
Is that being a slick media operator like Blair or Cameron?
Yes amongst other things if that's what it takes. Blair no matter what you think of him is a natural communicator as is Cameron.
I'm no admirer of Blair but he's more than just a slick media operator. Anyone who can get labour to drop clause three and make them electable again has got considerable leadership ability.
Yeah, there are big plants. But what i was referring to was areas of competitive advantage.
Blair no matter what you think of him is a natural communicator as is Cameron.
No he wasn't. No one really knew what Blair stood for. In fact, even [i]he[/i] didn't know.
That's how he won elections.
"Things can only get better" ......................or something, whatever, you know what I mean ...... trust me. Thank you.
.
It was Clause 4 btw.
LOL@ biscuit Powered.
Not sure I agree with your analysis but its the best post on this thread.
No he wasn't. No one really knew what Blair stood for. In fact, even he didn't know.That's how he won elections.
I thought he won with the message of " I know you like Tory policies but you don't like the Tories. Vote for Nu Labour I've removed the socialist bit from Labour so you can have the policies without the Tories"
I never heard him say that uponthedowns. How did the 'Great Communicator' communicate with you ?
Through telepathy ?
Stop being deliberately obtuse GG.
Stop being deliberately obtuse GG.
What do you mean "stop being deliberately obtuse" ? Don't you mean, "stop disagreeing with me" ?
I think Tony Blair was a crap communicator. He never said the things which you claim he said. If he had it would have far more honest of him, and at least people would have been clear where exactly he stood.
In fact, I would say that Tony Blair was an exceptionally bad communicator, and also a rubbish public speaker.
I once saw him speak to a large audience of Labour Movement activists when he was shadow Home Secretary under John Smith. As I sat listening to him, I remember thinking 'what the **** is this tw4t waffling on about'. Yes I could hear words, lots of them, but I couldn't figure out what the **** he was trying to explain. It [u]exactly[/u] like listening to a sermon delivered from a pulpit. Lots of stuff about being nice and decent and stuff, but utterly boring and without any coherent vision.
It was during the run up to local council elections (Labour where poised to win Croydon for the first time ever)and I thought what a ****ing waste of time, I could be out there doing something useful.
Then John Smith got up to speak and suddenly the whole hall was electrified. He spoke with passion about his vision for a new and different Britain and how we were on 'a journey' as he called it, to fight for social justice. I remember thinking after [i]his[/i] speech, 'yeah, let's get out there and do it'.
Tony Blair might be the highest paid public speaker in the world, but that is only because of the Yanks. Only they, would be so gullible as to give him vast amounts of money in return for the pleasure of listening to him telling them just how much he loves them.
Remember it was Tony Blair the British Prime Minister, who was slow-clapped and heckled as he tried to give a speech to the Women's Institute at their annual meeting.
WTF does The Women's Institute slow-clapped and heckled ffs ? These ladies are about being nice and polite to people, and singing Jerusalem, and making jam........and that.
Great communicator indeed 😕
What do you mean "stop being deliberately obtuse" ? Don't you mean, "stop disagreeing with me" ?
Well if you genuinely couldn't spot that that was the subtext of Nu Labour's message then I guess you're not being obtuse- just gullible
Thanks uponthedowns ........... that sounds much better.
.
You obviously didn't bother reading my post then.......
What tyres should Gordon Brown use when he leaves Downing Street?
"It is certainly true that his handling of the financial crisis has been far better than many on here would accept and across the globe he is considered to have done well in his financial management."
Surely this misses the point.
Had Brown not been so singularly incompetent during his tenure as Chancellor, the government would have had significant reserves in hand.
e.g. Selling our entire gold reserve at a 75% discount to the current rate
e.g. Committing (with Tony Blair) to root and branch reform of the welfare state - they bottled it and dismissed Frank Field's extremely detailed proposals
e.g. wasting Billions on an illegal war
e.g. wasting Billions on "grand projects" like New Deal, which several Billion pounds after starting has produced a rise in the numbers of long term unemployed young people
e.g. the £13.5B of errors as a result of the tax credit system complexity, which even the system developers warned Brown directly at the time would result in higher levels of fraud and increased administration costs
e.g. the £6.5B CSA write off
etc.
etc.
The only thing it's really possible to conclude is that under Brown, the government wasted tens of Billions of hard earned money on projects that were either cancelled, failed to deliver, or resulted in increased administration costs. Which is precisely why HMRC now costs ten times the administration cost per client of the US' Inland Revenue Service for a similar range of service lines.
Grumm I hate you...
I had to agree with TJ... Do you know how dirty I feel now :'(
Well I think it's too late now for him to pull it back, so he might as well go. I just think most of the reasons why he is being forced out are petty and largely bogus.
I can't help thinking that Brown is truly an expert on global macro economics, but struggles to apply the same clarity of thinking when it comes to direct management of a national economy. Hence why he can do the things he is doing to try to clean up the mess in the global banking system and thus be praised by people in America, but why this country was ill prepared to deal with such a financial crisis after Brown's time as Chancellor. Also, if he is such a genius at solving the world's banking problems, where was that analysis three years ago when it was rather obvious that the entire housing market and the banking system in support of it was grossly unsustainable?
Brown is like my missus - a first class degree in hindsight. And he can never seem to make a commitment to anything as it may be proven wrong in the future and the blame laid squarely on him.