Not provided the ammo in the first place?

Not possible, as I’ve been saying on all these political threads. People find ammo from anything you do, all you can do is get on with the job as best you can and ignore it.

But anyway, that’s not an answer. Brown can’t go back in time and change his decisions based on some one-sided schoolboy slagging match. What should he have done at the time instead of sit there and ride it out? What would you have done?

willard – Member

He does a good speech. It’s just a shame that no one gives a fig about MEPs apart from their accountants and bank managers.

Well you should because 70% of new laws in this country are determined by MEP’s in Brussels! The House of Commons has become little more than a quaint little entertainment show.

I dont think anyone was expecting him to break-down in a fit of mea culpa, tears and anguish. 🙂

Possibly an expression of sincerity might have helped though… 🙂

What should he have done?

Sitting with a serious expression shaking his head from time to time might have been a good start instead of the sixth form antics.

not sure I get it right as my level of english wasn’t very good but:

A complete unknown from the UK political scene, choose to have a complete non constructive personal attack towards his prime minister in the EU hall.
Did I get it right?
If so sounds pretty much like a knob head to me.
And UK isn’t much worst than France or Spain if you ask me.

juan – on one hand you are perfectly right: inconsequential, right wing “*****” has pop at PM on European stage.

On the other hand, and I apologise if it sounds rude, unintended, you probably dont quite pick up on his clarity and style without obfuscation or waffle that marks it out as exceptional. In fact that is why its has been picked up and sited over in the States (by the right wing of course) as an example of the polemic that should be used against Obama.

* your **** might be a right winger’s champion, as much as Dennis Skinner might be a right-winger’s “****”. Politics, the last bastion of childish name-calling.

If Hannan’s the new right wing hero, that’ll suit me fine. Bring him on.

TBH darcy, I bet Camerons lot will be just as annoyed with him as No. 10.

I wonder what the form the briefing against him will take. He’s bound to have some skeletons for them to have a go at.

looks like Andrew Neil is going to be covering it on the daily politics show this lunchtime. Lead comment was “internet phenomenon” NOT political opposition. As I said above, the story now will be the media’s failure to pick it up timely, not necessarily the content.

And UK isn’t much worst than France or Spain if you ask me.

The exchange rates would suggest otherwise 🙁

So he’s complaining about the expensive bail out of the banks. He’s also complaining that the collapse of the banking sector has hit Britain harder than other countries. He must see that without ‘us’ bailing out the banks Britain would be even harder hit. Financial services is a much larger proportion of our economy than it is for just about any other country, so unfortunately the government can’t just let big banks go to the wall. ‘Our’ debt as a country has now gone through the ceiling because so much ‘private’ debt has had to be brought into the ‘public’ sector.

DId you miss the important bit then?

The exchange rates would suggest otherwise

Big currencies are a safer “bet” than small currencies during a unstable times. It’s one of the reasons the Eurozone was set up. It’s not just about aiding trade, it’s about avoiding being squeezed by the mega currencies. Scarily there are some (non-euro) countries calling for a “global currency” to help avoid the decline of small currencies during this crisis. And yes, Sterling is a small currency and looking vulnerable.

DId you miss the important bit then?

You mean the bit where the leader of a country has to be VERY careful what his says and admits to so as to avoid a run on the currency of his country? No. The PM has a responsibility to show a strong front so as not to further undermine the currency, so this is not the time for apologies and regret, save that for the memoirs.

I never voted Labour, but recognize that the PM has a responsibility to say the ‘right thing’ more than to engage in debates that don’t help the country.

and we’ve even met

Best bit on this thread… 😀

Were you having secret talks? Was there a go-between?

It was on neutral territory and both were frisked prior.

So, all you Brown fanboys we have in the house can you list the major plusses of GBs reign as Chancellor and PM? Personally, since the day he strode into office with the words (in effect) “there will be no more boom and bust” I have the opinion that he is an arrogant, deluded bell end with little understanding of what prudence means or how to run a national economy. I suspect that time will prove him to be the worst chancellor we have ever had, leaving this country with a crippling debt that whoever succeeds him as PM will be stuck with for decades. I cannot think of a single good thing that GB has done, so please, fanboys, educate us and show where we are wrong.

or how to run a national economy

Who does know?

Don’t waste your breath typing negativity – let’s hear something positive. It’s a lot harder, you sometimes have to think.

I’m no Brown apologist, far from it, but anyone who looks to Hannan for well thought out ideas for the future, or present, is deluded. Read his words rather than listening to his tone and you’ll find nothing other than ya booing.

I have nothing positive to say about Brown – unfortunately. 🙄

And I don’t really know much about running an economy (I’m not an economist and I do not claim to be) but one thing I would have done is made sure I spend less than I earn. It’s really not that hard a concept to grasp, No, really it isn’t.

one thing I would have done is made sure I spend less than I earn

Especially when the going is good – otherwise known as saving for a rainy day.

one thing I would have done is made sure I spend less than I earn. It’s really not that hard a concept to grasp, No, really it isn’t.

The money has been spent by the banks, wakey wakey. Bank bailout? American mortgage defaults dragging the banks down? This is international economics, not household expenditure. It’s not so simple. Not that even being able to balance household income with expenditure is easy to achieve sometimes, which brings us back round to defaulting on mortgages quite neatly.

When the going was good the banks should have been made to pay more appropriate corporation taxes in case the government had to step in and bail out their arses when the going became bad.

amazing 20:20 hindsight their kelvin…let’s see, “variable tax rates according to forecasts of industrial productivity as a ratio of the peaks and troughs of the forecast economic cycle”. That will keep the econometricists thinking….

as for the “rainy day” metaphor, the current govenremnt would have spent more than the tax receipts over the course of a full economic cyle (Browns “golden rule”, mysteriously dropped) even WITHOUT the capital commitments to the banks.

The money has been spent by the banks, wakey wakey. Bank bailout?

So we’ve been bailing the banks out for the past 11 years have we? Saving for a rainy day is not restricted solely to household expenditure. I think you will find it applies everywhere including business and government. I am perfectly awake thank you. We were in deep doodoo before we started bailing the banks out and it is a little disappointing to think that after an unprecented period of economic growth (isn’t that how GB defines it?) we are in debt as a nation.

Anyway, that aside, I see there is no rush to point out what GB has done well.

The money has been spent by the banks, wakey wakey. Bank bailout?

You still seem to be completely missing the main point of the Tory Boy’s rant.

Not hindsight Stoner, there have been calls for more taxes on banks (and oil companies for different reasons) quite often during the last ten years. Lots of voices against the creation of the “mega-banks” we have now as well. If the government had reigned in the banks in terms of their expansion and taxed their profits more, then the current situation could have been quite different. GB would never have done these things though as he was too busy trying to make the City “friends of Labour” to blunt the Conservative’s sword as being the party of business and finance.

I am a critic of the government, but this MEP has no answers.

just what do you think Gordon would have done with any extra tax receipts raised from increasing the tax burden on the private sector? It sure as hell would not have been to buy back UK gilts or other government debt objects (like PFI contracts) to free up the UK’s balance sheet for the downturn.

GB would never have done these things though as he was too busy trying to make the City “friends of Labour” to blunt the Conservative’s sword as being the party of business and finance.

Can you blame him for that? He has elections to win remember.

If they’d imposed high taxes on banks that did well they’d have taken their business elsewhere.

The reason for the global cock-up IS NOT because people are crassly incompetent, it’s because the global situation is and has been for a long time really ungovernable. So sitting there slagging off politicians is pretty f*cking pointless when you have absolutely no clue about how things work. I’m still waiting for decent ideas from you lot.

molgrips – I put my ideas in an old thread earlier this year. You can go and dig them out if you like. I cant be arsed*. Schoolboy insults are more fun. 🙂

* based around stricter capital adequacy rules and overhauling the iditoic accounting standards.

I’m still waiting for decent ideas from you lot.

You probably won’t get any. This is about Politics, not economics.

Personally, I’m content that the Beeb’s lead story at the moment about torture allegations is on the balance of things, largely more important than the perhaps unsurprising ranting of a ring wing MEP.

I’m still waiting for decent ideas from you lot.

I gave mine somewhere up there – or would you prefer I put “saving for a rainy day” into more fancy economists words?

Stoner – Member
looks like Andrew Neil is going to be covering it on the daily politics show this lunchtime. Lead comment was “internet phenomenon” NOT political opposition. As I said above, the story now will be the media’s failure to pick it up timely, not necessarily the content.

So how come Andrew Neil would want to cover something which was an “internet phenomenon” on a daily politics show ? Doesn’t make a lot of sense to me 😕

The ‘political content’ of the speech was shite, although it was well delivered. So why would a tory politician slagging off the leader of the Labour Party be newsworthy ? Doesn’t that happen every day ? Is it because it broke convention and was carried out in the European Parliament ? Or maybe because it’s an ‘internet phenomenon’ ? – in which case, the ‘phenomenon’ would need to exist before it could be reported.

Please explain ….

Bikingcatastrophe – Member
So, all you Brown fanboys we have in the house ……

I would very interested to know who these ‘Brown fanboys’ we have in the house are.

Care to enlighten me ?

Is it because it broke convention

no convention was broken.

The yanks have a convention of not pissing on the president in public, but then since he is head of state that’s probably more appropriate. Gordon is the honourable member for Kirkaldy. Fair game IMO.

As for what is “news”. You may well be right. Maybe it isnt news. It certainly wasnt according to the primary media. But doesnt it say something that there’s been such a wide spread discussion about it in the new, alternative media to imply that it is news, just not what historically might be thought so. In which case you would be wrong, not by definition but simply by the environment of news changing.

Stoner, for someone who apparently felt so strongly that the video should have been a news item, that you posted a thread about it, your appear not to have very strong views as to why it should have been a news item.

Fair enough, I’ll just accept that you probably wanted to give the video publicity because it was a right-wing attack on Gordon Brown.

I certainly do have a view that it is a news item. Others will maintain that it isnt. I think that the extraordinary high level of coverage it has had on the internet reinforces my position, not theirs.

As to why I think its a news item, I do so because it was an oppositional attack, made in the same forum and at the same time as Gordon Brown’s limp dirge on how wonderful his policies were, giving reason (partisan or otherwise is irrelevant) why his policies have failed, while Gordon stands there postuing under the presumption that he is fit to lead the developed nations out of recession on the back of his policies.

and obviously, as Hannan put it on PM just now, he got a chance to say to Gordon’s face what so many people would love to say. Of course there’s an element of triumphalism in me that likes that.

i dont think hannan has said anything that isnt blindingly obvious
also he said it in the european parliament, and lets be honest how often does anyone on here pay attention to it ?

infact he was simply summing up what dc etc regularly say at pmqs, he just was able to say it without a load of other old ‘debaters’ shout “hurumpf” and so on over the top of him