The PM uses the 'C' word: 'Cuts'
"I've always told the truth," Gordon Brown told me in an interview today when I suggested that people had questions about whether he was being straight about the state of the public finances.
He is furious that the current debate focuses on his integrity and his honesty, but it is hardly surprising given the fact that he has changed his description of what is happening to capital expenditure three times in three weeks at PMQs.
Today, he also declared that current spending would go up by "zero per cent" - a slip that produced roars of both disbelief and ridicule.
I travelled with the prime minister on the train to Leicester at the beginning of a three-day tour away from Downing Street and the debate about debt, which he believes is obsessing the Westminster village, but not the country.
People care, he tells me, about jobs and housing now and not unknowable public expenditure figures for several years hence.
When I point out that the OECD, the IMF and the governor of the Bank of England all seem worried, he makes his key argument - that growth is the best answer to the problem of public debt.
Under pressure to admit that he's going to have to make cuts, the prime minister does use the "C" word for the first time.
He defines the word narrowly, though, to describe efficiency savings and assets sales and claims that these will allow him to protect front-line spending.
This is a debate he does not want to have, an interview he did not enjoy, but a subject that will not go away.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~56~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
What asset sales? There's nothing left.
Complain about this comment
Browns quite correct about growth, yet he is doing nothing to promote it.
State-based initiatives can be starting points, but since state-based is, by its very definition, a net destroyer of wealth and growth due to it being funded by taxation, it isn't the answer.
We need a streamlined, reduced tax system, that rewards businesses who employ and pay tax in the UK so we can attract investment, drive down unemployment and increase tax revenue by taking a smaller slice from a greater number, having less people on benefits and more people paying income tax.
Browns problem, and Labours truth be told, is that it cannot see this very simple economic fact. Increased borrowing and investment in pubic services during a time of economic decline is a suicide note. It'll reward certain industries certainly, but at the cost of driving others out of the UK.
This is the very core of why Labour always exit power with greater unemployment than they inherited, and why the economy always worsens under them. This isn't to say the Tories are so great, but Labour fails to have a basic understanding of what makes an economy tick, the Tories for all their faults at least understand that.
As for Browns claims of honesty, he has only himself to blame for being seen as dishonest. His own actions have displayed him to be a man of little integrity, having sold it in exchange for political power. His use of unelected peers in cabinet, his reliance on people like McBride and Nick Brown to enforce his actions and damage his enemies, his refusal to admit when he's been caught out and his constant refusal to be straight during PMQ's all mark him out as someone not worthy of trust.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Asset sales? What, like Royal Mail, perhaps?
From your esteemed colleague Mr Peston:
"...the first secretary says it looks impossible right now to sell a sizeable chunk of Royal Mail at a price and on terms that would secure value for the taxpayer."
Asset sales? Aye, right.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Obviously it is painful for him to admit, in the face of the facts presented by Cameron.
Don't forget that Gordon was the one who gave us the R word.
Inevitably, the nation will use the C word to describe Brown above all others.
Complain about this comment
Alphabet-Man Brown also gave us the U - in U-turn.
This is begining to descend into an absurd episode of Sesame Street.
Maybe we should refer to him as 'Big Bird' - or is that 'Bird Brain'?
Complain about this comment
2. Frank-Castle
Nice post F-C.
=
Yes Nicholas, people do care primarily about jobs and housing, but they are becoming increasingly educated about the wider picture too. Many thousands of us have our own debts and are learning the hard way what it brings with it and how unchecked spending brings long-term pain.
And what if that growth is slow in coming, jobs promised do not materialise and repossessions increase. Brown is putting it all on black and if it comes up red we're in the madhouse.
Complain about this comment
" ... the debate about debt, which he believes is obsessing the Westminster village, but not the country".
Once more showing just how hopelessly out of touch is Gordon Brown. I despair.
Complain about this comment
Just a thought: Brown talks about "investment" on one hand, and "asset sales" on the other.
Now all the world - except maybe Brown and his inner circle - knows that you "invest" in "assets".
So, let me see if I have this right? He is going to "invest" in assets at the same time as he is going to "sell" assets? And use the proceeds of the latter to (help) pay for the former?
Maybe it went past me a bit fast on that last bend, but if you sell assets to buy more assets then you are merely "replacing" not "investing"?
And if you are spending on current not capital account then you are not "investing" at all anyway, and its a lie to say you are?
Hmm.
Whichever way I look at it, I can't see how Brown can possibly be telling the truth.
But what do I know...?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"This is a debate he does not want to have, an interview he did not enjoy".
That's because Gordon Brown is both deluded and isolated. The scary thing, though, is that he is also meant to be running the country - a supposedly open democracy. But since Gordon Brown doesn't do democracy, he therefore doesn't do debate and he doesn't enjoy answering to a free press.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"When I point out that the OECD, the IMF and the Governor of the Bank of England all seem worried, he makes his key argument - that growth is the best answer to the problem of public debt."
===
Which he is doing his best to stifle by imposing an extra tax on jobs from next year.
Complain about this comment
Well, who would have thought that Grodon Brown was capable of such comedy, he says "I've always told the truth".
lol lol lol lol lol
I dont believe him, does anyone else? (other than you saga)
If anyone is interested I have developed a finely tuned method to ascertain when he's lying...Whenever his lips move!!!
Complain about this comment
well our recent governments have sold all our assets and now as a nation we are in debt up to our ears so whatever gordon decides to sell off can only be bad for the people of this country.
this is now a case of the haves having spent out expecting the have nots cover the bill.
sadly our leader still wont call a general election becouse he knows he would be on the unemployment line.
Complain about this comment
This is a Prime Minister we did not want to have and a government that refuses to go away.
Complain about this comment
If there are efficency savings that can be made, that the government are aware of, then why haven't they bloody made them already?!!!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"I've always told the truth"
Gordon Brown 01.07.09
Well Nick, if you're with him for three days, you can ask him whether he means by this:-
(i) Throughout my life I've told the truth. Not exclusively the truth, but there have been occasions when I've been truthful.
or
(ii) Everything I've ever said has been the truth.
and as far as "truth" is concerned, whether he accepts this to mean the quality or state of being true? And if so whether there are any of the following definitions of "true" that he is not prepared to confirm apply to his statement:-
1. In accordance with fact or reality
2. Not false or erroneous
3. In accordance with reason
4. In accordance with correct principles
5. In accordance with received standard
6. Genuine
7. Not spurious, or hybrid, or counterfeit or merely apparent
8. Accurately conforming to
I appreciate that one shouldn't have to ask such questions of a serving Prime Minister, but he will be aware how much his reputation would soar if he is able to confirm that he means the same thing by this statement as that which he expects us to believe he means.
Complain about this comment
Honestly, I wish Brown would make up his mind about what his numbers are? Which truth is it? The first, second or third version?
http://cogitodexter.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/i-wish-gordon-would-make-up-his-mind-about-truth/
It's pretty obvious why he doesn't want the debate - he doesn't want the reality to sink in with the voters rather he wants them to believe all is rosy with Labour's figures and isn't with the Tories', despite the fact that his own official figures show capital spending is going to have to be reduced. No wonder he's uncomfortable - he's caught in a trap of his own making now.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Why is he surprised...when his own lieutenant...
ED BALLS TOLD A BLATANT LIE YESTERDAY!
Talking Balls
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3725688/talking-balls.thtml
(still...I suppose he's only following his boss' example)
Complain about this comment
In my opinion, Brown is devoting far to much time and effort on Fiscal Stimulus.
In his quest to hit the Political G spot, he inadvertently hit the R spot
which will ultimately result in a C section for public services.
We need a Prime Minister, not a fiddler on the roof.
Brown needs to take his hands out of his pockets and clean up his mess.
Complain about this comment
Good post from Nick (for a change!) There is an argument for higher spending now to try to bring the recession to an end sooner but it would mean bigger cuts later. Trouble is, Brown can't make the argument very well because he is dishonest about the spending cuts that will have to be made in any event
Complain about this comment
Well said #2 and #11
"Out of touch" is mild. I'm so astounded, I'm lost for words...
Complain about this comment
25. At 9:11pm on 01 Jul 2009, sagamix
In answer to your question.
Yes.
It is all part of my plan.
You need to read between the lines.
The truth is out there.
Complain about this comment
2 Frank Castle
Excellent post.
I remember recently Barak Obama saying something similar to the gist of your post, about the US economy along the lines that the government cannot be the main economic driving force, the ecomomy has to be driven by businesses creating the wealth. Gordon Brown however believes that the state is everything. His new best friend has a fundamentally different approach.
Complain about this comment
I watched Jeff Randall on Sky this evening. Great programme nightly - cutting edge - cutting being the operative word.
Tonight he had David Smith of the Times, or is it Sunday Times, and a prof of economics from Edinburgh. Smith was more scathing but both said large cuts in investment and large rises in tax. Both were eloquent and persuasive, something that Gordon Brown isn't with his 0% growth.
Complain about this comment
Our national debt is increasing by the day because we are spending more than we earn. The equation needs balancing, either by more income from tax or less expenditure by cuts.
I would like to know what action bloggers propose, there's always the chance that our ideas of what to cut could take root where it counts. So what should be cut? Where could more tax revenue be squeezed from?
It is my belief that the public sector is massively inefficent and that the same service could be provided in many areas for far les money, I would remove a layer of box ticking bureaucracy across the board.
I was interested in Digby Jones comments, they echo my own thoughts and are sentiments I have seen in others posts. I think action from the next government on the public sector pension timebomb is an absolute must.
Complain about this comment
Assets sales ?
The swindlers who conned the emperor is using some of the loot to buy public assets, probably cheaply.
Complain about this comment
The 'spending will go up by 0%' gaff...along with the 'we have saved the world' gaff...will go down in gaffing history as far as the HoP and Hansard recording these comments is concerned.
Once can be counted as a slip of the tongue...but twice...and you start to lose a bit of credibility...tut, tut!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
He is a LIAR, and not a very good one at that.
I look forward to this comment being modded off a couple of days after it was deemed acceptable,for being off topic.
I assume Mandy didn't have time to cast his eye over my comments before one of the underlings approved them.BBC you are a disgrace.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I've never found politicians to be very truthful, but I think this was just an honest mistake. Why so worked up over it?
He is talking about investing in the future in another article, so I don't see why we should hang on his every word.
Britain must invest in next generation - PM
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I too have 'always told the truth' but not 'all the time'*.
Just like Gordon Brown, according to Tom Bowers unauthorised biog of Brown.
Bowers claims just after the Ecclestone Affair, where Brown gave an interview where at some point he er, fibbed, and Brown later ran down a Whitehall corridor screaming "I lied, I (profanity) lied" .
Which at least demonstrates that he was'nt happy about lying.
I think that Brown, along with the rest of them, tries the tell the truth when the consequences of doing that are not too politically damaging.
Realistically, that is about the best we can hope for.
* As a teen-ager, I arrived home in a terrible state and told my mother I had eaten some dodgy sandwichs from a vending machine. In fact, sharing a bottle of whisky with a chum, I had downed half of it in about 40 minutes. Of course, she soon found out the truth, I got very little sympathy indeed and was left to rot. So, I discovered the hard way that lying is not a very sensible course of action. Also, I dinnae drink whisky nae more.
Complain about this comment
To be honest I don't care who Nick R likes or dislikes. I don't like GB being allowed to get away with his lies. Watching PMQT (it only has one extra letter notice!) today I was amazed how ineffective he was but even more so at how the half hour is wasted by petty little side comments that have little to do with information and much more to do with time wasting. He wouldn't even answer a question from his own side about nationalisation of the railways. Dodge, dodge and dodge again. I am ashamed of our political correspondents who fail to get stuck in, but am totally exasperated with opposition leaders failing to hammer it home.
Complain about this comment
I'll try again I recommend the FT Britain has sunk itself deep into a fiscal black hole .It tells you the tax increases necessary to fill the gap in our finances.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e8d6b4c6-659d-11de-8e34-00144feabdc0.html
If you are with GB I only want to know one thing where did all the money go
explain by proper variance analysis but I guess he may not know what that is
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Hmmm, somebody on here is touchy about journalist Tom Bowers unauthorised biog of Gordon Brown because my post on the subject @ 41 was referred immediately.
Whatever.
Frank-Castle's contribution @ 2 is pretty accurate, in my opinion.
The Tories do seem to have slightly more idea than Labour on the economy.
Presumably because many Tories run or their family and friends run businesses and so can give immediate feedback on any proposed policies affecting business.
That is not an endorsement for the Tories, merely an observation.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
One last try and them I'm off again from bbc .
The problem is not just expenditure its revenue.The tax system as currently configured expects to get money from asset inflation (houses shares inheritance etc) It isn't going to be there people the goose is dead .So whoever has to sort this out (and I don't think the architect would ever change the design ) has no choice it's 5P on income tax and I don't know what that does to future growth other than it can't be good .
Good luck everyone!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Since all the bank robbers that have got away by simply walking out of the front doors of our nationalised banks (pockets bulging)...this petty government cannot even find the wisdom to pardon Ronnie Biggs, on his death bed, after serving 8 years in custody in an HM prison hospital.
Who would you trust most...Sir Fred Goodwin...Ronnie Biggs....or Gordon Brown?
They just don't geddit!
We can just about stomach the bank robbers....but the one thing we just can't stomach, are liars from planet Westmister!
Complain about this comment
While Brown was busily telling you that he was not a liar. He was in fact telling you another lie. From the spectator blog
"Brown was interrupted he said he meant to say 0.7% but was cut off after zero. As if. When it was pointed out to him that Brown said zero percent rise in 2013/14, and wasnt interrupted at all,"
So Nick will you be taking him to task for lying to you, directly to your face, will you?
Complain about this comment
A 0% increase, unbelievable.
The Nick Robinson interview has certainly helped to reveal the sleazy mis-information campaign at the heart of this dieing New Labour project. Pitty it is 11 years to late for the country's finances and economy.
I will however say that the policy of 'playing the man' by my lot; however tasteless (and it certainly is unpalatable) is only working because we do have reality on our side. The Pre-Budget report, and later published documentation has proven beyond doubt that there will be and must be cuts, and New Labour have already outlined this (privately)- it is time they stop treating people like me and others in the electorate like frought children and tell me what they plan to cut after the General Election.
...but will Mr Brown give up on his 'labour investment vs tory cuts' artificial debate? That I suspect will be the theme of New Labours G.E campaign if they are not careful.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Pilsden 49
yo make a very good point. There must be some level of re-orientation of the tax base. This was a hall mark of the 1979-1987 tory period in office where the sources of tax revenue was shifted from peoples hard earned pay packets to peoples actual spending. Perhaps another tax base restructuring is required to solve a possible long term problem.
We all need to remember Ireland, they have seen government revenues fall by 20% because their tax base is too heavily orientated upon the housing market (a bubble which has well and trully burst). Lets avoid having the same situation here; of falling governmental tax revenues and at the same junction increase in demand on government benefits during Browns recession.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#55 deanthetory
We've missed you over on "Blether with Brian"! some sensible Unionist input is desparately required!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
So,Gordon Brown is furious that his honesty and integrity are being questioned is he? Good!Might give him a taste of how I feel.
When has this wretched man ever been honest? As Chancellor? I think not.
He was just this miserable looking bloke in a badly fitting suit and a dodgy haircut,who sat scowling on the front bench,and for a time we didnt
take enough notice of what he was up to.He was spending half his time devising his beloved stealth taxes,and the other half plotting to oust Blair.
Since proclaiming himself as P.M.he has lurched from one disaster to another proving daily that he is unfit,inept and incompetent.
Principles,ethics,standards and morals are absent in Gordon,therefore we
quite rightly question his honesty.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@33, I_Despise_Labour
You ask what can be done - a 5 to 10 year moratorium on foreign aid would allow us to to:
1) Remove income tax on those earning under 25k p.a. thus helping the poorer end of society and the self-employed
2) Set the annual tax-free allowance for those earning over 25k to 10k
3) Use the tax receipts of those earning over 25k to pay the debt and decrease borrowing.
All without altering current spending plans, and in a decade, once we've dug ourselves out, we can start the foreign aid again.
That's for starters.
And if anyone thinks stopping foreign aid would be cruel, remember much of it 'disappears' and rarely help the people it needs - the DfiD has become a cruel joke, making large bonuses for friends of Labour whilst doing minimal amounts to tackle poverty. It even deals with businesses who have some very dodgy practices towards the very people it's supposed to help.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Gordon is being about as honest as a £3 coin.
Don't care if it makes him mad - it makes me mad that he refuses an election and we will now not get an Autumn spending review.
Admit it Gordon - you've screwed my pension, you've screwed this country and you're going to do whatever it takes to stay in power.
And I'm pretty sure that if it becomes obvious that you're going to lose the next election (and isn't it obvious already?) you'll do your very best to make sure that the Conservatives inherit the biggest mess you can create.
Then you'll spend the next 10-15 years in opposition blaming the Tories for all your mistakes.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I trust Brown when it comes to the economy and public services...I definitely don't trust Mr Ten Percent...Cameron is just going to make the recession worse!!!
Complain about this comment
frank @ 2
state-based is, by its very definition, a net destroyer of wealth and growth due to it being funded by taxation
that's fundamentally incorrect - a person creates wealth (makes the rest of us richer) when the economic value of the work they do exceeds the amount they are paid to do it - makes no difference if it's public or private sector - what you say there ... especially the by definition bit ... is a very common clown misconception and it's my duty to nail it
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
What's the betting our ^Honest" unelected leader will make an appearance at Wimbledon at the weekend looking for some popularity spin-off from Andy Murray's success - don't be cynical though, he's not into celebrity, remember, he'd only be there to promote the country and help our international tourism growth by sticking his ugly mug on the telly
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Gordon Brown has performed so appallingly over the past year that it amazes me he is still in power.....but that's democracy for you! He has lurched from one crisis to the next and because they come so thick and fast no-one remembers what his last lunatic proposal was.
We are in for another year of unbelievable governance from one so out of touch. Financially, he will set us back a decade at least.
The real truth is that he doesn't know the truth. He can't remember what he has said or what his advisors are telling him.
There is no cunning plan but I think Baldrick may have a better idea than this self-deluded, ego-centric buffoon.
Complain about this comment
@76 sagamix
I'm sure you can highlight the profits the state is making then? The ones that would negate the level of borrowing and current spending deficit?
An individual is certainly capable of generating wealth within the public sector, I am certainly not arguing they can't, but once averaged out it always comes in at a negative. You can get outliers with budget surpluses, but those amount to little other than noise and frequently have political reasons rather than economic ones.
The state absorbs cash from the private sector, which is the true generator of a nations wealth and hence why it gets taxed. The world has tried purely state-based solutions, but finds that the sums don't add up, and the workers find their wages are artificially lowered as no ones competing for their skills. It's a little hard to fund schools and the like when funding is almost entirely composed of taxing the people you're paying...
Confusing airy theory with concrete reality is a very common clown misconception, and whilst it's not my duty to nail it, I occasionally do so out of a sense of charity.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick Robinson
You do have the power to interrogate GB more about what his fiscal plan is. I'll wager you £20 that you can't make him agree that his proposals all add up to at least a 10% cut in services 2010-11....
are you on?
Complain about this comment
Ok Nick .... I appreciate you are asleep and that £20 isn't worth chasing.... but if the Great Leader states his permanent position of truth maybe he could do a 'live' confession? Or is his moral compass built with 'God-defying' codes?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
To have growth you need strong business. To have strong business you need to cut red tape and not have punitive taxes.
What have Labour done? Increased red tape and cut VAT on everything but fuel. Now fuel prices are killing the economy but because the government is so obsessed with the green issue business has to suffer. With fuel way over 100p per litre we will continue to suffer.
Immediate cut in VAT on fuel would help many businesses and probably a cut in the excise duty too wouldn't be bad so that families have a bit extra to travel/have fun! Wow! Wouldn't that be novel!
Green energy will come to the UK but not under this current government. They do not support business sufficiently and the routes for new tech to penetrate the market are so difficult that you need to join associations/quango to even get a foot in the door - I know I work in renewable energy and we have new technology that would provide more than enough power for the country but to get to the right areas you need to be rubber stamped!
Brown is finished though so the sooner you recognise this and stop asking easy questions the better. We are done with him and tragically have to wait for his time to be up. Only 10 months to go!
Complain about this comment
You only need to look at the figures to see the truth..........erm theres already a thread about full figures not being made available now one has to wonder why if theres nothing to hide.....
Anyhow it was hilarious to see him stutter and stammer through PMQ's one day he might answer a question.....rather than spout the same old lines.
The economy is in the poorest shape its EVER been in.......and we know who is responsible and he can wriggle all he wants but hes chasing a lost cause.
People do care about the economy,because thats the very reason they have lost their jobs homes and pensions .It will be at least another Parliament and Government before we see any sort of recovery,having said that with little or no industry and our foreign industries retracting to home base we might never see a recovery.This might be as good as it gets....
Complain about this comment
#2 good post
There seem to be alot of contributors on here who have put their finger on Brown's achilles heel. Forget the insults, he has a basic deficiency which can never help this country build its way out of the hole he has created.
Brown is a centraliser; a man of the State who believes the State should control everything. If anyone still hasn't seen the regular article in Private Eye, "From the desk of the Supreme Leader", then look it out. It would be really funny if it wasn't so true.
Supported by Balls, he has 5 year plans, (not forgetting the latest 5 year teacher licence plan), and targets coming out of his ears and has lost touch with the reality of how the country works. As previously pointed out by various contributors, stop taking money from business, let them invest it in employment and watch the country grow again.
Surestart this....., tax credit that....., all 17/18 year olds stay at school, (temporarily reducing unemployment figure).....God help us. When will it all end? Honest Gordon and his gang will no doubt be producing their own newspaper shortly spinning the State's message. Maybe they could call it Pravda, (or has that been used somewhere before)?
Redistribution costs money, alot of money. For every pound we give the State it costs the machine a third of it to spend it. What a complete waste. Just don't take it in the first place!!!!! Please??!!?!
If the PM cannot get his head around giving decision making and return power back to the electorate locally then he should leave immediately IMHO.
Complain about this comment
me @ 72 sandwiched by frank @ 2 and 78
yes, but you pronounced that the state can't create wealth by definition didn't you? - that's a theory based assertion, hence my theory based reply was apposite - your assertion (although widely believed) is incorrect, that's all I'm saying
Complain about this comment
I have always define politicians as
"Self-serving professional liars"
By this definition Gordon Brown scores 100% in each category.
I have never, ever, known a politician in the UK who was so ambitious that he put himself so far ahead of his party and the Country.
And I have never known a PM who has lied so often and so vigorously to the British public.
His comment "I always tell the truth" will have been noted by St Peter for the day Brown ascends/decends into an abyss of his own making.
Complain about this comment
61 laughatthetories
I can remember when Aitken and Archer deservedly got their come uppance. Aitken's "sword of truth" speech was particularly bizarre. I think we all enjoyed seeing those two brought to justice !!!But it important to remember that neither of these people were primeminister, and that their creative view of the reality of their actions (can't use the L word) concerned their own personal activities and not the governing of the country which affects everyone. This does however make them not fit to govern certainly.
Brown may not be as bad as these two, but that's not saying very much. Just because he isn't in prison doesn't mean that we have to believe everything he says. I don't tust him or believe anything he says now.
As for mentioning Mark Thatcher, whats that about ? He isn't and never has been in politics or government, let alone PM. I'm no fan of his but his activities, whatever they may be, don't affect the country to the extent Gordon Browns do. Just an fairly dismal attempt from you to smear his mum by association I suppose ......
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Asset sales must be spin-speak for raising more loans. Debt, Debt, debt has to be the catch phrase for Nulabour now.
Complain about this comment
Why are you reporters all so straight faced? All so bright - smart if you like but .....
I was listening to the responses Lord Mandelson of Foy was NOT giving to the PM programme yesterday on the Royal Mail and imagined myself as the questioner, Nicholas.
The Lords replies were so odd the word "honesty" in the thread below seems oddly placed. Is that part of it? An MoP life? He or she cannot say what is what - but what must be - today only - subject to checking back with head office and what may have been said elsewhere?
My goodness. I would become Harpo Marx were I an MoP - just to be on the safe side.
I will stick with anagrams. They mean not a thing you know?
Subject: A reform to make our skies safer
Anagram: Smart karaoke fie U - SFO remorse
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Morning nick nice to see you have some warm weather over there So its c word for cuts is it ?Its a pity brown can't put the cut into his final few months left in power then we would celebrate with a large beer.For example how about a general election next week? never going two happen though i watched your interview with him on the train to leicester my home town.How pathetic his answers were same old rubbish hes completely lost it .How can this bunch of misfits can continue to run the country beggars belief Oh and by the way that jack straw fellow stooping the release of Ronnie biggs ,what a sham after all the fiddling that lot have been up to makes Ronnie look like Cinderella Are well one day soon the British public will be able to rid themselves of the rubbish,And the poor old torys will have one hell of a task in bringing some form of normality back to what was once a great country.But until the reform carry on up the creek.with no paddles.
Complain about this comment
So the PM now admits that he will make cuts, but wants us to believe that he's always been honest...
...the only 'C' word I'll use in future to describe Gordon Brown won't be 'cuts', although similarly it is 4 letters long and also contains a 'u' and a 't'.
Complain about this comment
There should be no tax rises or cuts in sevices to pay for the mistakes of the banks. the money loaned to them to keep them afloat should be clawed back each and every year till the dept is repayed,with interest.
Any bank that fails to keep up repayments the board and share holders will loose it and the goverment will sell it on to recoupe the money.
Thats what will happen if i default on my morgage, one rule for one, one rule for all, the banks must pay back the money.
Complain about this comment
The problem with Gordon Brown is that he honestly believes that he always tells the truth and everyone else is wrong.
When you start from that position you of course never tell a lie; it's a physiological problem.
Complain about this comment
Having been annoyed enough by the "young and privileged" blog to complain to the BBC, I would like to start by saying I found this a much more useful blog. Not because I am a Tory bigot, but because it is one of the few times that the incumbent Prime Minister has been pressed, even gently, to explain what he means. And many of the comments are a welcome return to thoughtful, constructive, debate.
BTW, if Brown always tells the truth, can you ask him for the full details of his leadership pact with Blair? Can you ask him if he still believes there is no more boom and bust? Can you ask him if he thinks it would have been wise to save a little more and spend a little less, between 2001-2007? Can you ask him if he thinks David Kelly was fairly treated? Can you ask him if he thinks his Cabinet is a shining example of democracy?
As to Brown's comment that people don't care about unknowable public expenditure in the future. This shows how out of touch and patronising he is.
P.S. Can some one please explain the difference between current and capital expenditure?
Complain about this comment
"I always tell the truth"
The man is about as deluded as they come.
It's not "I never lie", as in "I never knowingly tell untruths". No, Brown goes for "my word is gospel".
Complain about this comment
Re 86, saga and F-C.
You're both right to a degree. Any work done which produces an economic benefit greater than its economic cost is beneficial to society. The key difference between public sector work and private sector work is the motivation behind the work. Private sector work is necessarily based solely on economic benefit; public sector work has an element of societal (ie. non-economic) benefit. In other words, the public sector often chooses not to optimise the economic benefits in order to achieve some other goal (supporting the poor, the sick, victims of crime, etc.).
One can also think in terms of resource allocation. The private sector allocates resources according to a free market - anyone is free to bid any amount for any resource, and the highest bidder gets that resource. This maximises efficiency, but is not necessarily "fair" in our societal thinking of fairness. The public sector allocates resources on various other bases, such as greatest need (healthcare), or simple equality (rubbish collection). Hence the public sector can deviate from optimum economic efficiency.
One last thing - the private sector has a negative feedback mechanism built in, thanks to the free market, that acts against increases in inefficiency. A company that routinely overspends for services rendered will go bust, as other companies out-compete it, steal market share, secure more investment from investors who recognise the better efficiency and return on their capital, etc. The public sector does not have this natural feedback loop because it does not operate in a free market. There are not rival police forces competing with each other for tax revenue. The police force cannot go bust like a private sector service company might, because it would not be allowed to happen.
As a result of all of this, we choose to balance the more efficient (but socially careless) private sector with the less efficient (but more socially agreeable) public sector. But we must be clear what role the public sector plays. It's inferior to the private sector in driving growth.
Complain about this comment
"I've always told the truth" said the PM......
.......and Nick, you didn't laugh out loud in his face?
You could have responded to that with any of the following.....
"Really Prime Minister? As in you didn't go to the country in Autumn 2007 because of your lead reducing in the polls? That YOUR removal of the 10p tax band wouldn't adversely affect anyone? That you didn't break your promise to the British people to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution? That you knowingly stated that capital expenditure would continue to rise after 2011 when YOUR OWN FIGURES clearly stated it wouldn't?.......
The guy is so deluded he probably doesn't see any of the above as lies.
Complain about this comment
2 Frank Castle
Excellent post, puts my thoughts very clearly. The tories may not be able to deliver because I'm not still not convinced by DC and the rest but at least they understand the need to allow business to drive the economy and the wider issue of allowing individuals choice in how to spend their own money!
This has always been and will remain the difference between labour and the tories and should be the heart of the election battle.
Complain about this comment
Sure he tells tells his angle on the truth. What he doesn,t get, is the very truthful fact that in his stewardship he failed to protect the country from disaster, by not being in control of what was happening at the banks, and he is still there, neither accepting responsibility for that, nor anything else. What we need is a visionary statesman to get us out of this mess, not reactive government making law on the hoof.
Complain about this comment
Any analysis of Brown's rhetoric or speeches shows that he is either lying or delusional. Spending has to come down. With spending on social security this year ALONE likely to surpass income tax receipts, the only way he can continue this spend spend spend mantra is to borrow borrow borrow. £20bn last month. How much this month?
Eventually the gilt market will have enough. The pound will collapse. The IMF will be called in.
Printing money to buy your own gilts is not sustainable.
Meanwhile, Gordon can still inflict a lot more permanent damage on the UK economy with the 10 months he has left.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Is the hot weather getting to everyone? There is so much bile written on here!
I am no fan of Brown, but surely the 'truth' is not quite so black and white as some on here believe. For example, many would hold it as truth that Maggie was one of the greatest PM's of the last century, whereas others would hold it as truth that she was the worst. So which is true? It entirely depends on what you believe. No-one has a monopoly on it.
As for the 'C' word....somebody said to me the other day that there are people in the Labour Party who have regarded Gordon as something of a cult figure. I may have misheard.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re 97. AFAIK capital spending is spending on assets - e.g. building hospitals, buying school textbooks, replacing defunct computers. Current expenditure is all spending, so capital expenditure plus salaries and admin costs plus anything else, like consultancy and legal fees, utility bills, rent, etc.
Complain about this comment
A couple of points seem to pass Gordon Brown by completely:
1. It is not just the Westminster Village that is obsessed with debt. Everyone I know (and I have nothing whatever to do with Westminster)is extremely concerned about the level of government debt and, in particular, the fact that so much of it is structural. In plain English, this means that, even without the credit crunch/recession, the public finances were and are unsustainable without major cuts, extra tax or both. The inability of Gordon Brown to recognise this, whether or not it is lying, is very frightening and seems to represent poor leadership.
2. We are sick of spin, whether it is actual lying or not. We are not fools and wish to understand how the government is going to make the most of the very poor outlook. If GDP has fallen 5% in a year, is GB really saying that 100% of this fall is to be taken by the private sector, because that is what no cuts in the public sector means. Is it really fair that those of us in the private sector are facing pay freezes and worse, declining pensions and more years in the workplace should pay higher taxes so as to ensure tha public sector is untouched?
It is absolutely clear that, when the economy is in decline, when the debt is increasing so sharply:
1. Tax receipts are going to fall;
2. The debt interest is going to go up.
There is simply no reconciling these two with a continued increase in the public sector. I just wish that GB could accept these facts so that we can have a calm and rational discussion as to where to go from here.
So, why do we not think that GB is totally honest? Here are some clues:
1. Having Ed Balls claim that debt is going down, as he did yesterday, and then to state that debt is always measured as a percentage of GDP when queried is absolutely dishonest. A reduction in debt is when you owe less money. That is not going to happen, on IFS numbers, for 15 years or more;
2. Claiming that we don't need a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty because it is not a constitution;
3. Claiming to have wanted to clear up parliamnetary expenses, when nothing has been done for 12 years
4. Pretending that the 50% tax rate is actually going to achieve anything when all independent economists expect it to raise an insignificant amount.
Essentially, GB sees everything along party lines and is incapable of dealing in an open way with the public.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#95 iworkforwork wrote: There should be no tax rises or cuts in sevices to pay for the mistakes of the banks.
Quite right. There will be tax rises and cuts in services as a result of Labour's mistakes.
Labour went into the recession with an unsustainable fiscal position (i.e. too much in debt), as the Governor of the Bank of England pointed out recently. Gordon believed the no more boom and bust mantra.
Labour increased the debt during the recession by discretionary tax cuts (VAT).
Labour is undermining future economic confidence by refusing to discuss how the budget deficit will be reduced, and by denying there is a problem.
Enough Labour failures to punish us until 2035, I believe (and by the way we don't have a balanced budget by 2035, only one that meets Gordon's 40% golden rule).
Looking forward to the 2035 street party.
Complain about this comment
The arrogance of Brown is truly unbelievable. Apparently we're not interested in the state of the nation's finances, aren't able to make a decision on the Lisbon Treaty (only MPs have the intellect) and have forgotten that he's been chancellor or prime minister for 12 years.
Complain about this comment
I honestly wonder if Nick (or any of us) is asking the right questions. In any western type society, there is the private sector and the public sector. The wealth created by the private sector funds the expenditures of the public sector. Some of those public sector expenditures may be wealth creating in themselves, but in a free enterprising democracy, should not be a huge proportion.
It is well recognised that the ratio of overall taxation to wealth creation should not exceed around 35% - i.e. for each £3 of wealth created by the private sector, the government will take roughly £1 of it to fund those parts of society that are government run. That ratio is, more or less, sustainable. I believe that this ratio of 35% (or one not much higher, I seem to remember a figure of 37% somewhere) was representative of the economy which Labour inherited from the Tories in 1997 (I may be wrong here, I was living overseas at the time).
Currently, I read recently that this ratio is now almost 50% (Money Week a few months ago) - i.e. each and every £ of wealth generated by the private sector is now absorbed by the government (and that was BEFORE the banks bail-out, quantitive easing, etc). This is not sustainable! How can it be?
What happens next, unless this ratio is brought well down to the mid-30s%, is that ever more taxation leads to ever more private sector businesses failing (thus reducing the tax take, and increasing the ratio). If it is an important business, the government then brings it into the public sector (e.g. National Express ECML franchise). The ratio of public sector expenditures to private sector wealth creation is increased again until it is now well over the tipping point of 50% and headed inexorably higher - leading to either complete government control of the economy, or total bankruptcy. Nick - the next time you are talking the economy with Brown, please ask him to explain this for the ignorant masses like me that he says are not interested in such questions.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I'll put my hand up I am quite Naive when it comes to where my money goes.
But I saw this on Breakfast this morning regarding prescription Charges.
OBVISOULY they are not required in NI, Scotland or Wales.
However, I thought that the 7 quid for drugs we buy when poorly went back into the NHS!
Oh no! It goes into the government coffers. And is in fact a SICK TAX!
Don't worry about inheritance Tax, the government taxes English people for being ill.
Nice one!
Complain about this comment
Brown's version of the truth is directly opposed to anyone elses version of the truth. You can see that in the interview when he had to swallow before answering...always a giveaway. Clearly Nick's flavour of the month with our PM and there has to be a reason for that...yes ?
Complain about this comment
104 chrisbowie's comment is so correct. I listened to Mandy last night,if Brown doesnt lose the election for Labour mandy sure will !
Complain about this comment
107. Thanks.
Complain about this comment
Quote from Nicks blog
"He defines the word narrowly, though, to describe efficiency savings and assets sales and claims that these will allow him to protect front-line spending."
So Brown admits that he's been wasting money during the last 10 years? I haven't heard that before.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear - a man in complete denial.
If he were to meet real people (and not zanulabour stooges) he would realise that most people are desperately worried about the amount of debt we have and the level of pain needed to reduce it - and what's more we realise that it is our children as much as ourselves who will have to carry this burden.
They do say that the way to recovery for an addict is for the addict to accept and announce that he has an addiction.
So c'mon Brown - let's hear you say - "My name is Gordon Brown and I am a stranger to the truth". Then perhaps we can start moving forward, always assuming that Mandy will let Brown stand up and give such a statement.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Isn't it simply a case that people will forgive anything of a good orator and nothing of a man that is unable to speak? Gordon keeps telling us what he "meant to say was". The problem is that if you are running a country into debt and you cannot communicate, it is a recipe for losing. Blair lead us into war, blew up the bubble that popped and Britain kept voting for him, because he was brilliant at PMQs and could motivate many people. My view is the next PM should know nothing about politics or policy, but be an absolute marvel at reading a speech! He/she could do what they like then!
Complain about this comment
Gordon has been caught out telling lies to both the public and to parliament.
Gordon normally gets away with his lies, so this will have come as a rude shock to him.
As Fraser Nelson points out, blogs have the space and inclination to expose lies. Gordon has to realise that the year is 2009 and his politics of statistical lies will no longer work.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Glad that Brown is now accepting the "C" word as I've been using that word when referring to Brown for quite a while.
Here is the truth, Mr B. I work for a firm of tax advisers and, yes, we work within the letter of the law to save our clients tax. We currently have a rather neat and completely legal scheme which is saving our clients lots of tax. Not cheap mind so clients were not too sure whether to take it up. Now, though, they are more than happy to do so. Why? The increase in the top rate of tax to 50% (51.5% when you include NIC) and the removal of the personal allowance which creates a marginal rate of 60% (61.5% with NIC).
So, well done Mr B. You were collecting 40% of a lot, now you'll be collecting 61.5% of nothing. You just don't learn, do you?
Complain about this comment
#110
"Labour increased the debt during the recession by discretionary tax cuts (VAT)."
It's even worse than that.......Labour's VAT cut (Which achieved absolutely nothing - I mean, who out there thought "Well I wasn't going to buy that 50 pound sweater but now that it's only 48.94 I'll rush out and buy it") cost the country 12 billion pounds. The increase in the top rate of tax will only bring in 1.6 billion, even if nobody leaves the country or indulges in tax planning.
What a pile of crock. Blair and Brown have ruined this country.
Complain about this comment
"This is a debate he does not want to have, an interview he did not enjoy, but a subject that will not go away.
"
He started the debate by claiming "Tory cuts"
Now the elephant has been noticed out of the corner of his eye I suggest he turns and faces it, calls it an elephant and stops lieing to Parliament and the Public at large
Complain about this comment
Brown is wrong on every count. Firstly, debt is obsessing everyone outside the Westminster village, since we all know that Government borrowing is simply deferred taxation. The cost of servicing the debt being rapidly accumulated now, will mean less money available for frontline services in the future. Secondly, Brown has no plan for reducing the current account deficit and his pathetic waffle about "growth" and "efficiency savings" simply do not cut the mustard. Brown has painted himself into a corner (yet again) because of his precious, but useless dividing lines - he wanted to fight an election on "Labour investment versus Tory cuts" when everybody in the land knows for a fact that cuts will be necessary to restore some balance to the public finances.
Brown should stop lying, come clean about cuts under Labour and allow the debate to move onto the proper battleground between the parties - who will cut where and by how much, combined with who will raise which taxes and by how much.
You see, Brown is in denial - tax rises and spending cuts are going to be mandated whichever party is in power - the dividing line is which cuts and which taxes and how much of each!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It is disturbing to hear that any MP says he "always tells the truth". Politics, like business, economics and science, is based on ideas and the means by which they are put into practice. Nobody can claim to tell "The Truth".
If Brown had said he tells the truth "as he sees it", I'd be less concerned.
How many times has he and other ministers stood up and told the public of brave new initiatives that have or will deliver N thousand or millions of units of some deliverable. Only for a bit of examination that reveals that some numbers have been claimed previously (double counting), some are heavily dependent on a hoped-for response from the business world and some never seem realistic. In other words, the numbers are not real - therefore NOT the "truth".
The problem facing Brown is that he and his spin-masters have created a world of "truths" that is just not believed by the electorate.
Complain about this comment
'Mr Brown was forced to correct himself when he mistakenly talked of a "0% rise" in spending in 2013/14 - latter stressing he meant to say there would be a 0.7% increase.'
Mistaken? You took that at face value then. Would it would be a bit too much to ask for you to have perhaps delved a little deeper on this point? Brown just sat down and didn't attempt to make this point in Parliament. He just skulked like a spoilt child who thinks he knows best.
And a three day trip away from Downing Street? Is this little junket a small reward for your unswerving loyalty to the most discredited, immature and useless PM I, and everyone else alive today, has ever had to endure?
Complain about this comment
When Brown claims he always tells the truth there is a slight problem. His version of the truth is the one that is in embedded in his own head. It bears very little resemblance to reality.
I found Andrew Neil's interview with the two Scottish politicans immediately after PMQs interesting. One of them - a current minister so presumably SNP - said that Brown came over as a defeated man. He went on to say he was like a wounded animal who had reached the stage where someone really ought him out of his misery.
For his own sake, and that of the country, let's hope someone does that soon. It could well be Mandelson.
Complain about this comment
@65 Frank
Yes, I have already voiced my displeasure at Osbourne ringfencing foreign aid, I dont want to see a single penny leaving our shores to countries who are probably in better shape than we are!!
Complain about this comment
I think you Nick, are finally "GETTING IT". Gordon Brown is incompetent as a PM and was incompetent as a chancellor.
This man has dragged politics into the gutter by ignoring parliament and acting like a dictator, ignoring even his own party members, and more importantly ignoring the wishes of the people of this country.
Mr Brown has been supported for the past 12 years by almost all press and the BBC in particular until the last few months as it is blindingly obvious that he is deluded and most people think in need of medical help.
An article from yourself without obvious Labour/Brown bias, congratulations.
Perhaps you can move on to ask all the awkward questions now, as mentioned in many comments. The Iraq enquiry farce and involvement with the Iraq war, 1 million people still not compensated from the 10 pence lies, selling of our gold supply cheaply, Lisbon Treaty referendum, failure of education system, failure to tackle crime, setting up the FSA triparteid useless system which failed, allowing house prices to get out of control,losing data from nearly every government department, allowing immigration to get out of control,the Gurkha mess, employing illegal immigrants, letting PFI get out of control and keeping this massive debt 'secret', rewarding all Labour pals including the dubious Mendelson with promotion to the Lords for more taxpayers cash, rewarding Labour pals with quango jobs with massive pay and pensions etc.etc.etc. The list is endless and starts with the million pound Bernie Eccleston bung to the Labour party.
Please Nick, start pressing these points which the public are furious about, more than the expenses fiddles/thefts and encourage your colleagues to do the same, especially Mr Marr of the BBC.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"I always tell the truth."
So that'll be another lie then.
Gordon Brown is a liar, he has misled the House, he has misled the people. He is surrounded by the nasty and the venal.
When Meryvn King starts arguing for a more rapid tightening of UK fiscal policy you can be sure of two things.
1) He is getting worried about our means to re-pay our debts.
2) He is getting worried about inflation.
There has to be cuts, regardless of some other more dodgy semantics or turn of phrase. Government has to spend less.
Next year, there will be a 13% GDP deficit in government spending which is unprecedented in this country's history.
What good are economic policies if we end up going to the IMF?
The IMF like 1976 will tell us exactly what our economic policy will be as the condition to being bailed out.
Rest assured it won't be getting into even more debt to save Labour's electoral chances.
Complain about this comment
Did you notice how many times Brown looked out of the train window when he was telling his porkies?
Complain about this comment
Gordon only ever tells the truth. Yeah, right. I don't know about you but I have lost all interest in these discredited politicians. They bore me to death and maybe that is the bigger problem now. I have switched from the Today Prog to Radio Three... lovely music. Am I the only one who has had it with the whole pantomime?
Complain about this comment
"I've always told the truth" - GB, July 2009
I hope someone has the mettle to bring that up with him, next time he's questioned as to why he signed up to the EU constitution (sorry, treaty) saying it was a fundamentally different document.
Which means either he's a liar, or every other EU leader is (who all agree it's pretty much exactly the same thing as before). Strange that nobody's ever tried to push him on that one....
Complain about this comment
Everyone knows that debt is too high and needs urgent attention. However if you work in the public sector or are on benefits you are still likely to vote for labour as they would rather raise taxes on an already overtaxed private sector than alienate their core vote. The government's economic policy is focused on the next general election than the long term fiscal position of the country.
Complain about this comment
It is interesting to read the (loosely) economic arguments on this blog thread between sagamix and Frank-Castle but as one of them mentioned, confusing airy theory with concrete reality is a ... misconception.
I think I'm fairly grounded in the reality of the English people and in that spirit therefore, I offer you this little vignette.
Today I took my old Mondeo for its MoT to a garage on a local industrial estate.
About 18 months ago, just over 5000 people woked on there and the garage is crucially dependant upon these workers dropping off their vehicles for servicing etc.
The garage owner is a personal friend so I asked how business is.
He told that they are gradually going bust at a rate of minus £2000 per month and will run out of cash at Christmas.
The primary reason for this is that the the number of workers on this industrial estate has now shrunk to under 3000 people.
That is, 40% of the workers there have lost their jobs within the past 18 months.
You are probably thinking that this industrial estate must be in the Midlands or North, where everybody knows its grim, but no, it is not ... in fact, this is in the so-called prosperous SE of England.
Seems to me that we're running on fresh air at the moment.
Complain about this comment
"107. At 09:29am on 02 Jul 2009, ChiefWhiteHalfoat wrote:
Re 97. AFAIK capital spending is spending on assets - e.g. building hospitals, buying school textbooks, replacing defunct computers. Current expenditure is all spending, so capital expenditure plus salaries and admin costs plus anything else, like consultancy and legal fees, utility bills, rent, etc"
ChiefWhiteHalfoat, this goverment has actually done very very little captial expenditure, every new or upgraded school and hospital and also a lot of transport improvements have under brown only gone ahead IF they were PFI financed.
I cringe every time he tells us that he is spending soo much on these things, he isnt we the tax payer will be paying for the next 25year 3 or 4 time more then the cost if the goverment had borried the cash them selves.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
So the government's topic of the day is limiting the way credit card companies (and other financial institutions) shovel loans over the private citizen.
Bit late isn't it?
If Brown had been really prudent, he'd have done that a decade ago. But, at that point he really wanted people to borrow to spend, to keep the tax-take flowing in. He could have imposed limits on the multiples of loan to value in the housing market. But it was better to see prices soar, so tax-take from house sales would also go up.
Ironic, really that personal credit is being addressed, while government borrowing goes through the roof.
Complain about this comment
What I find most alarming about Brown is that until he became PM I didn't know much about his character (dishonest, mendacious, a bully, profligate, etc). Now I realise this flawed character has been in charge of the UK's finances since 1997. No wonder we're in such a mess.
Complain about this comment
diddlydan @ 92
So Peter Mandleson is apparently really running the country, certainly behind the scenes, probably with significant input from Alastair Campbell.
Any fair minded person who is interested in the black and white arts of politics will surely acknowledge that Peter Mandleson is an absolute master of the craft.
I acknowledge such of Mandelson, much as one would in appreciating the consistent skills exhibited by a top class sportsman such as Roger Federer over the past decade or so.
Mandleson has made mistakes, usually of a personal fiscal nature but in politics, he has barely put a foot wrong (so far).
Complain about this comment
Nick, your "When I point out that the OECD, the IMF and the governor of the Bank of England all seem worried,..." is excruciatingly tame and craven and, frankly, on the facts, entirely un[der]representative of the strong degrees of criticism levied by the OECD/IMF/BoE. You and the BBC must not be so poodle-like to this PM. Here you are, on a train, with a prime preferential interview slot, given your BBC role, and you only muster a bon mot "worried"?!! Does not feel, right now, like an independently analytical BBC ...
Complain about this comment
Well said Nick this is a fair assessment and I hope it will be the first of many. The irony of protesting his honesty while at the same time employing/having employed scoundrels like Whelan, McBride and Balls is completely lost on him. His dishonesties are two numerous to list here but a personal favourite was when he told assembled journalists that he never intended to replace Darling with Balls. I think he genuinely believed he was telling the truth.
As to his assertions about growth, this would be hilarious if it were not so serious. He is channelling scarce resources from the productive part of the economy and putting into a grotesque and wasteful public sector. This is a sure recipee for at best stagnation and at worst, financial collapse. His real goal, as we all know, is to protect the public sector vote by showering it with money and making the private sector carry the burdens of recession on its' own. As one astute observer put it: "everything with Gordon is political and that is why he is weak".
When the history of these times is written a good title might be 'An Alternative Reality" (sadly, 'Alice in Wonderland' has already been used).
Complain about this comment
So Brown is suggesting that HE always tells the truth.
Well during a previous Downing Street Press Meeting the Prime Minister was asked if he was replacing Darling from his Post with Balls, and even thought Labour Party sources close to Brown had been briefing the News Media of this fact, when questioned and challenged twice about this matter, Browns answer was NO, and NO again.
Therefore, Brown always tells the truth?, Come off it Gordon, who do you think you are kidding, NOT the Public thats for sure, and I wonder how many more "Porkies" you have told in the past, and will tell in the future.
Complain about this comment
Not sure if you're still reading this section Nick, but well done on a better blog.
If the PM is hurt by debates on his integrity, then it really is tough. Him and his party are guilty of quite amazing treachery. There are lots of examples but the ultimate betrayal has to be the ratification of the Lisbon treaty with no vote from the British people. Labour promised the public a say and then didn't give them one in case they returned the wrong decision. That is absolute and can not be explained any other way.
You're right about the honesty issue. Come the vote you can either have a Tory government that might lie, or a Labour government that has unequivocally lied.
Complain about this comment
"105. At 09:23am on 02 Jul 2009, middleenglandtim wrote:
Is the hot weather getting to everyone? There is so much bile written on here!"
No, it's the crumbling economy, the failing health service, and this utterly incompetent government (aided by the complacent media, BBC being worst of the lot).
Complain about this comment
"... away from Downing Street and the debate about debt, which he believes is obsessing the Westminster village, but not the country."
If Gordon Brown truly believes this, then his education policy is a complete failure. Why even bother to teach the public numeracy? Irresponsible debt (and all that flows from it) of all colours has "caused" this recession.
Parents who are concerned about their offspring's future are in the minority? This is what he is suggesting...?? And he IS showing concern about their legacy?
Many years ago, my father (private sector) went to work and brought home his earnings. This was handed to my mother (public sector) who prioritised the family's needs and spent on those. Everything left was put into savings (very useful when our particular private sector was temporarily unemployed) and an occasional treat.
She (and we) understood she could not spend what she did not have. We children were allowed a very small amount of pocket money in order to learn how to administer money. We could save or spend. When it was spent that was it. No borrowing.
The bank (my father) simply refused to lend. If any of us wanted more, we had to go find a paper round or saturday job etc.
So my father (a Labour voter all his life) was simply wrong. He should have bought a bigger house, bought useless material throw-aways and put everything on the never-never. My mother should have just stuffed us full of fast food and thought nothing of our future. Their children could then have done exactly the same so that the government could have provided for us for ever and a day because somebody out there will be stupid enough to live within their means and provide for us?
I am truly incensed at his attempts to ridicule those of us who show a modicum of intelligence and reality. And actually say what we mean.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
You are not having a good war - a fact a lot of people are commenting on. Brown is quite clearly telling lies and others such as Fraser Nelson are leading the charge and winning huge acclaim. You really will have to stop being so even handed if you are to maintain your credibility. Just about everyone now has rumbled Brown so why don't you?
Complain about this comment
100 lines from the teacher:
1:I have always told the truth when asked by Martian invaders.
2:I have always told the truth when asked by potato heads
3:I have always told the truth when asked by Raith Rovers football players
4:I have always told the truth when asked by small children
5:I have alwyas told the truth when asked by fat capitalist pigs
6:I have always told the truth when asked by non-believers
7:I have always told the truth when asked by opposition parties
8:I have always told the truth when asked by a spade
9:I have always told the truth when there is no fact to the situation
Z....
....Z
93:I have always told the truth even if it means I gain something I don't want
94:I have always told the truth regardless of whether it will hurt others
95:I have always told the truth to get something I want
96:I have always told the truth regarding image
97:I have always told the truth about A.Blair
98:I have always told the truth about my feelings
99:I have always told the truth when in Thailand.
100:All these statements are true,otherwise I am grounded[not-Kripke-like].
Complain about this comment
Gordon tells the truth,
But no need for the whole truth.
He knows what we want.
Complain about this comment
Good posts Frank-Castle, glad there's still some calm debate going on around here - not just the usual rhymes and name calling. I'm interested, where do you think the cuts should fall? For my money, I'd scrap I.D Cards and Trident, raise taxes on the super rich higher (I know it doesn't technically make alot of extra revenue, but sometimes a stance can be more important than the reality) raise fuel tax, and put a hold on any additional airport runways. More investment in the rail network (and bring down its ticket prices) and an initiative to better enable immigrants to integrate with the communities they move into. Just my 10 cents.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
For consistency, should your first line not read:
"I've always told the truth," Gordon Brown BOASTED to me in an interview today...
Personally, however, I would prefer:
"I've always told the truth," Gordon Brown GRINNED to me in an interview today...
Complain about this comment
As the current political discussion is about truthfulness or otherwise, the Prime Minister, mentions the "C" word in a discussion that he did not want the sudden shuddering of brakes being applied is deafening.
Why did you not go ahead and give the context surrounding this discussion. Any person, who has their truthfulness questioned, faced with a large potential audience, must be keen to put their case. Why did the Prime Minister not take advantage?
Is this because Brown and youself know that no-one believes Labour will tell the truth at all; in any circumstances?
Complain about this comment
I am reposting my censored comment as it was on topic in spirit. The main topic was questioning Mr Browns grasp of the truth and his integrity. My post also pertained to Mr Brown's grasp of the truth regarding devolved legislation. The main topic touched on Mr Brown not liking this interview - I was also speaking about an interview Mr Brown wouldn't like.
--
Nick. Want to see the PM really uncomfortable talking about a subject he really doesn't want to talk about?
Ask him about England. Ask him if he thinks England is a proud historic nation. Ask him if he'll sign the English Claim of Right (yes there is one and it's only a search away).
Ask him if he thinks it's fair that the English pay more than anyone else for prescriptions. Ask him if it's fair that the elderly in England have to sell their homes for care. Ask him if it's fair that the English have to pay for dental check-ups and eye-tests when those in his constituency don't.
Ask him why when he's talking about England only legislation he cannot even say the word England?
Ask him if it's fair that he can vote on English issues but English MPs cannot vote on Scottish issues. Ask him is it fair that he is passing laws in a country where he has not one single vote and where the people there cannot vote him out.
Sadly these are the questions that the British establishment media do not want to ask. Even worse these are the questions that each and every English MP is failing to ask. Each one betrays their constituents by failing to grapple with the English question.
Go on Nick please prove me wrong. Ask the PM about England.
And no we do not want the English regions.
--
Come on BBC remember freedom of speech?
Complain about this comment
Nick
Good interview.
I don't feel this has really been about lieing. Although I think Gordon Brown has. It's more to do with a tragic error of judgement by the prime minister and his closest colleagues. They have thought they could attack the tories as if it were 1983. Classic old class warfare.
This type of thing turns me off and pushes me to vote for another party. I don't care if the front benches all went to Eton or all worked down t'pit. I care about them having the right principles to apply when in power.
I would like to see more people who have actually run something in their lives and fewer career politicians.
What I am starting to like a lot is what David Cameron is saying. To increase accountability we all need to have access to information on precisely how taxes are spent. The provision of this information will give us the power to hold government to account.
It is also important to me that the health and education of the country is improved. I don't believe that the amount you spend on these services is an end in itself. There must be enough money to do this, but the management of the services and the policy direction are the most important factors. I feel I can trust Cameron on these issues. His own experiences will have instructed his views on the NHS and I feel his outlook is right. He is winning my vote at the moment.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
But the prime minister told the BBC's Political Editor Nick Robinson that he had a credible plan to reduce debt while also improving public services.
------------------
I found this bit particularly amusing.
He categorically failed to improve public services during the boom, how on earth can he expect anyone to believe he can improve them during the bust.
What other tricks do labour have up their sleave other than throwing money at problems, then quoting the amount spent as if it is a measure of success?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
In the video of Brown being interviewed, it's my opinion that he is lying throughout. Note how he stares intently at Nick and then glances out of the window. Watch it and make up your own minds.
Complain about this comment
The truth from Gordon reminds me of Lionel Hutz in the Simpsons:
"We have 'the truth' (scowls) and we have 'the truth' (grins)"
I take it according to Gordon our economy resembles the 'motivated seller'
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown's honest and integrity is not what is in question at the moment. I have no doubt that he, as an individual, is as honest as he is allowed to be as Prime Minister.
What is in question is the ability of this current adminstration to govern the country. I have no political bias as such, but it has appeared clear from the events of the last few weeks that this is a government in 'free fall'.
The recession has made the country effectively bankrupt. The efforts of the treasury and the Bank of England to shore up the failing economy has resulted in vast amounts of money being poured into the City of London with little or no effect.
The result of this is that the spin doctors in Number 10 are seriously scraping the barrel hoping to find some way of producing policies that the country will accept and persuade them to vote this failed adminstration in again at the next election.
This will not work. Not now.
I can only hope that someone will have the courage to put Gordon Brown out of his misery. Not physically but politically.
Is it not time that someone in the House of Commons raised a vote of 'no confidence' in this govenment?
This would forced a general election and allow the people of Britain to express their own opinion through the power of the ballot box.
Complain about this comment
In his own mind, perhaps he honestly does believe that he's always told the truth. But that seems to be at odds with the facts.
Brown's attitude is that the facts simply don't matter; the only thing that matters to him is his own personal twisted worldview where he's at the centre of the universe leading the way for mere mortals; he twists the facts and logic to mean whatever fits in with how he sees reality.
Sadly for us, how he sees reality is completely different to reality itself, and also different to how everyone else on the planet sees reality.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Brown is sadly way out of his depth; but then he always has been.
Moral: never believe your own propaganda.
Complain about this comment
What can one say? We have a Prime Minister who blatantly lies both in Parliament and to the media and spends the rest of the time attacking the Tories and Lib Dems. Not exactly positive thinking!
The electorate would be far more impressed, as they are with Vince Cable, if Brown told us what we already know and the parties got together to sort out the problem but then that would be putting the country and its people first wouldn't it? Can't have that!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
105. At 09:23am on 02 Jul 2009, middleenglandtim wrote:
Is the hot weather getting to everyone? There is so much bile written on here!
I am no fan of Brown, but surely the 'truth' is not quite so black and white as some on here believe. For example, many would hold it as truth that Maggie was one of the greatest PM's of the last century, whereas others would hold it as truth that she was the worst. So which is true? It entirely depends on what you believe. No-one has a monopoly on it.
======================================================================
You are just so wrong here.
Firstly, do not confuse truth with opinion. There is no way to prove whether thatcher was the best or the worst - its all about your perspective.
And secondly if something isn't 'black and white' then it isn't either true or false.
While it has been shown that Gordon does occasionally lie - I think the issue over Darlings move from Chancellor was a specific example, in most cases he simply phrases things to avoid the outright lie.
Of course having to perform that kind of verbal gymnastics to avoid saying the truth puts it on the same par as a lie.
Complain about this comment
Growth has always been the answer to every governmental issue. Of course if growth provides greater tax revenues the government has more money. The issue for most governments is this very concept. If continual growth is needed to maintain government there can be no end to growth. Some concept of a sustainable government should be considered. Bureauracy has taken on the notion of "divine right."
Complain about this comment
153nottoonear
My sentiments exactly - brought up the same way. No credit card and only buy when I have saved enough. Shame on this government who dares to infer we are stupid.
In fact, he is going the right way to loose what little support he may have who would still, even after all the damage they have caused, have voted for Labour.
Complain about this comment
Thank goodness for the more focused debate from Raz_the_destroyer and others (post 157).
I'm sick of the playground name calling - do the Tories really think that unsubtantiated allegations and name calling will win them the election? And do Labour really think that they can completely avoid all debate around such an important issue?
Sadly we allow our politicians to treat us like fools every time we indulge them by partaking in or responding to mud-slinging. It does not move the debate forward to call Brown a liar, all it does is shut the discussion down and allow politicians of all sides to continue to hide the truth.
We should all make an effort to focus on the discussion of real information - the truth or otherwise of the statements of each party will then be clear for everyone to see.
Complain about this comment
72. At 11:56pm on 01 Jul 2009, sagamix wrote:
frank @ 2
state-based is, by its very definition, a net destroyer of wealth and growth due to it being funded by taxation
that's fundamentally incorrect - a person creates wealth (makes the rest of us richer) when the economic value of the work they do exceeds the amount they are paid to do it - makes no difference if it's public or private sector - what you say there ... especially the by definition bit ... is a very common clown misconception and it's my duty to nail it
=======================================================================
Saga, I understand exactly what you're talking about here, but you're not using the same definition of wealth.
For instance, if the chancellor instead of giving us a tax rebate, gave us an extra bank holiday he may make our lives richer, but he wouldn't be making us richer financially. In the same way, the public services do not make the country richer financially, but they make our lives richer if you will.
Unfortunatelly you can't pay off your debts with that kind of wealth.
Complain about this comment
Moral
"You really will have to stop being so even handed if you are to maintain your credibility"
What nonsense - who can possibly take this seriously? Do you really think you will persuade the BBC political correspondent to become biased just to court popularity with some of you lot. Fortunately, he has a bit more about him than most of the posters on here recognise and a lot more credibility.
Complain about this comment
165RealDrFeelgood
It's difficult enough to be inadvertantly watching these vid's - but if you say he's lying throughout then I'll give it a go. Oh, but the smile is difficult to take!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
115. At 10:02am on 02 Jul 2009, HarryPagetFlashman wrote:
I'll put my hand up I am quite Naive when it comes to where my money goes.
But I saw this on Breakfast this morning regarding prescription Charges.
OBVISOULY they are not required in NI, Scotland or Wales.
However, I thought that the 7 quid for drugs we buy when poorly went back into the NHS!
Oh no! It goes into the government coffers. And is in fact a SICK TAX!
Don't worry about inheritance Tax, the government taxes English people for being ill.
=========================================
Well you said it yourself, what a naive comment.
And where does all the money for the NHS budget come from in the first place - general government 'coffers' is where (i.e. all the taxes, charges and income paid to the state).
So prescription charges go into the 'coffers'(it is estimated to be part of the pot in the first place)and is pre-allocated - though not directly hypothecated.
Or perhaps you would rather that whether there is medicine available when you need it is related to the 'sales' of prescriptions from one month to the next? "Sorry, none of that this month as prescription sales were down last quarter, come back next month maybe"
You could also look at the proportion of the prescriptions issued which are actually subject to the charges - the majority are not (children, elderly, certain chronic conditions etc. are all excluded in England).
Whether the rest of us should be subject to these charges or not is a point of view/political priority and requires a choice to be made(and for the sake of clarity, I believe it should be free for all).
Whether we chose to spend the money on free prescriptions for all or if we prefer it is spent elsewhere.
Wales,Scotland etc. chose to remove the charges by apportioning their overall budget differently (and arguably because per head they had more to begin with which made it an easier choice), a triumph of local accountability.
Complain about this comment
He is just following House Of Commons Rules....
An MP is not allowed to call another MP a lier, He is an MP and hence he can not call him self a lier... ego he always tells the truth!
Complain about this comment
"I've always told the truth," Gordon Brown told me in an interview today when I suggested that people had questions about whether he was being straight about the state of the public finances."
I would have thought more of Gordon if he'd said -
"You want the truth? You can't handle the truth"
There cannot be a single person the the planet who can truthfully say "I've always told the truth". It says something about Gordon that the words come so easy.
Complain about this comment
Gordan specalises at having the fact at hand at all times
So can you ask him the following from Aprials Budget Red Book
a) What was the predicted TOTAL goverment spend for 09-10, 10-11, 11-12
b) What was the predicted spend for unemployment for 09-10, 10-11, 11-12
c) What was the predicted debt interest payments for 09-10, 10-11, 11-12
d) What was the predicted debt repayment for 09-10, 10-11, 11-12
Im sure he will be happy to provide them as (accourding to him) they show departmental speding growth over the period.
To everyone else they show that taking total spend and subtracting the other 3 give a year on year drop in the remaining pool of cash. IE Departmental spend!
Complain about this comment
" I've always told the truth " says Gordon Brown. That is a truly bad start to your interview Mr Robinson, Brown would not understand what truth was if it reared up and bit the wad of fat he sits on (not Ed Balls )
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I'm glad the subject of lying has come up - it's one I am convinced is at the root of societies problems.
All the major parties are deeply rooted in the culture of lying. Even policy is a complete lie, both parties generally claim to be able to cut taxes and to increase spending - and only an idiot would believe that was true (although I agree a lot of people do fall for it).
Politicans get into a mindset that lying their way out of trouble is perfectly acceptable (they do it for a living) - the expenses showed exactly how far that has gone. I would hate to be the wife / husband of a politican because there's no way you can trust someone who lies all day at work, to be honest with you when you get home. I suspect this is also why there is a high proportion of MP's who get caught having affairs. Lying to your spouse is easy once you've spent all day lying to the country.
If Gordon wanted any chance of winning the next election he shold take a radical step and issue the party with a 'truth amnesty'.
Let it all out - and lets see what happens. We can start with "err, that Tri-parte system was a load of rubbish - and that's my fault really - I'm sorry, but at the time it did seem to make sense"
A minority of people will jump up and down, but not as many who are at the moment with the continuation of the denial. Most people will actually admire he had the balls to admit his mistake and own up - because humans admire honesty more highly than absolute competence - especially as detractors can say "I don't lie" - but none of them can say "I am competent in everything I do"
What saddens me is that neither party has taken this line and both are lying - and accusing the other one of lying. The PMQ yesterday about spending was a joke, it's was schoolboy and amateur and only succeeded in bringing the reputation of politics down further.
Complain about this comment
and of coarse the family Courts are working perfectuly upholding the labour traditions of fairness and justice.
Why limit the L word to only Brown, with a few notable expections like
Frank Field, Spin has been the defining policy of the last 12 years. Ie must use of the L word and the BBC reporters have "fallen" into line with it
Complain about this comment
Look, the time will come soon (it's almost certainly happening right now) when reality will crunch into Brown's spending fantasies.
Everywhere, individuals, companies and public organisations are running out of credit and/or cash. For example, where I live, Moray Council just shocked themselves by discovering unexpectedly that they were £2 million overspent, against a forecast overspend of £600,000. The Council says (jokes?) it will be saving millions of pounds in the coming 2 or 3 years ... but is clearly haemorrhaging cash today. Hardly an organisation in control of its finances. This type of situation means that organisations start to operate in atmospheres of near-chaos for much of the time.
Similar situations are arising everywhere across our economy, at every level. Gordon Brown can bang on as much as he likes about spending the money he doesn't have now, and certainly won't have tomorrow, but this cold, stark reality - of individuals and organisations running out of money - will smash Brown's fantasies to smithereens soon enough. Ask any company owner struggling with a cashflow crisis. Er, sorry, I forgot: MPs aren't supposed to have second jobs, still less have a clue about how companies operate.
What the politicians have yet to grasp, from inside their Westminster pay and expenses cocoon of thieves, is that unless and until they front up to the shocking reality that is now the UK economy, then with each passing day we shall edge closer to socio-economic armageddon. It's happening now.
The political shysters in Whitehall are living in a deluded world of their own, obsessed with personal survival. When that devil-take-the-hindmost attitude extends to us ordinary citizens out here in the increasingly financially desparate real-world, there will be hell to pay on our streets and in communities.
This is the imminent reality of a political elite now so far removed from the nation's citizens that one wonders which planet these people now inhabit.
And right up there at the top of this unholy economic, political and, indeed, moral mess is ... Mr Gordon Brown MP: the man with the moral compass who saved the world.
Even Kafka couldn't make this up.
Complain about this comment
Cameron has done well to put Gordon on the defensive. Gordon's attacks haven't landed a punch and better yet the debate is now on the honesty of the PM. Nothing better than watching Gordon, speaking like Richard Nixon, forced to announce "I am not a liar".
Complain about this comment
sagamix
"that's fundamentally incorrect - a person creates wealth (makes the rest of us richer) when the economic value of the work they do exceeds the amount they are paid to do it"
Interesting - to me that's exploitation - do you agree?
What Frank @2 seems to be saying is that we should allow the 'wild west' to ensue because 'it's good for business'.
He also states "Increased borrowing and investment in pubic services during a time of economic decline is a suicide note"
....well surely decreasing public spending is also as much of a suicide note in a time of Economic decline. Mainly because the Government is the ONLY ONE WITH MONEY, otherwise where does the investment / stimulus come from? The redundant worker? The Business cutting costs in the face of falling revenues? The working people - who will be svaing under their mattress in case of future redundancy? - not at all.
Neither solution is going to work - there is no magic bullet. Purely and simply the world is overvalued - a retraction in that valuation is the only way to resolve this matter. You're OK if you're like me and never exended your mortgage - but if you borrowed money based on an over inflated asset (your house) then you may well be in trouble.
The BIG lie that neither Gordon or Dave can face is that neither of them could EVER BE IN CONTROL OF THE ECONOMY. They cannot admit it because the other doesn't - but only a FOOL would think any Government has ever been in control of a Capitalist Economy.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#182 ice_wombat
I was just about to comment - yesterday I believe Peter Mandleson accused George Osborne of 'telling an untruth'.
- you mean a lie? Why not just say it - are you scared George will beat you up in the recess? Be a man about it Mandleson. What a complete pussy (cat).
The second observation I would like to make is with the title of this piece - I have to admit I mis-read it and added a letter that wasn't there. I thought Gordon had really 'gone honest' by using the 'C' word to describe the opposition.
...now that would have been an interview - like watching Rab C Nesbit....
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#185
When you're Brown and your closest advisor is Balls what hope does the truth have?
We should go back to old school politics - how about this guy for an upstanding member of society. (note Journalist and Swindler listed seperately in those days)
Horatio William Bottomley (23 March 1860 26 May 1933) was a British financier, swindler, journalist, newspaper proprietor, populist politician and Member of Parliament (MP).
Complain about this comment
Regarding Brown's character; and this comment is for the benefit of those English and Welsh contributers; he is fundamentally a mercenary Scottish politician, driven by personal ambition.
He has put aside all integrity and honesty for his own self interest and personal ambition. He wanted to be a big fish in a big pond. He wants to be PM of the UK, with all that brings, seat in the Security Council, prominence on the world stage, trappings, ermine, perks etc.
He doesn't care a hoot about the people of England and Wales. Get real, he's there for himself. Send a clear message to him. Send him back over the border. We'll give him a job, not as a teacher, maybe a school janitor.
Complain about this comment
So Gordon has 'always told the truth'?
If Gordon's two closest friends (Damian McBride and Ed Balls) told you the same, would you believe them?
Thought not.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
re: 96 skynine
... and does Gordon Brown even have "free will".
Perhaps he is just a victim of his upbringing, and he can't help being what he is.
Perhaps we are all just figments of his imagination...
Complain about this comment
178 laughatthetories
Clever little post that. By taking a single sentance from moralcompass10's post at 154, and by omitting the reference which would allow people easily to go back and see what he was really saying, you have managed to make him look a bit biased and silly. I'm sure that was your objective, too.
In fact, the context is vital. It is essentially that a strong body of evidence is being drawn up which shows that Brown has become chronically dishonest in the way that he represents public finance now, Labour policy on future public finance and Conservative policy on how to mend public finance. It is equally fair comment that public debate is being obstructed by Brown's political dishonesty, and that a fair approach is therefore to challenge Brown. (Note, I used the word "fair", not "even".) Robinson's approach, which can just about be called even-handed, though other words might be more accurate, is not to challenge Brown, on the grounds that this might be advantageous to his opponents. Robinson therefore, rather than chasing down the real nub of the story, contributes not to the debate but to the stifling of debate. Compared to some historic examples of journalists exposing the truth and achieving national benefit by doing so, Robinson's effort can hardly even be called journalism. Maybe it just about qualifies as "magazineism".
And by attempting to marginalise legitimate criticism of Robinson's approach to the story, you show us that you too wish to keep a true account of the public finances and the PM's part in them out of the debate. Now why would that be?
Complain about this comment
"I've always told the truth", says Brown.
Yet, Michael Crick's latest entry on the Newsnight blog suggests that the true figures relating to our debt mountain are not the same as those released for public consumption.
Another worthwhile read is the Stephanomics blog, which shows the level of investment due to drop sharply, despite Browns/Balls/Mandelsons protestations.
Unfortunately, the moderation is so slow today that I guess most people have given up reading this blog.
Complain about this comment
C for cuts? Children starts with that letter too - and seeing Harry Flashman as part of a posting here name - "cuts" out of lessons - public schools etc - or "cuts" out of other stuff comes to mind too.
Where is everyone, Nicholas? MoPs? Lunch perhaps?
It happened in the Parliamentary Standards Bill too but I am not feeling very looked after by Parliament at least. Acres and acres of green empty benches discussing the Looked After Children Bill.
Children in Care in my day and MoPs from all sides the few that are there at least admitting what problems may be faced and have been faced by generations and generations of them. Us.
No special pleading honest!
I am being well looked after by the State - now. Nothing is too good for me as far as attention is concerned.
In fact if it comes anymore oppressive I may complain. Lol
But where do MoPs go? They the absentees must suddenly come back when all the hot air no offence is expelled and there is a need to vote.
But listening to them debate the shortcomings on this aspect of our Society comes very oddly at the moment. I remember the now Home Secretary and what now seems almost an Election promise about the area. That seems so so long ago now. Honesty in politics? It would be nice though.
Yet PM Questions it is standing room only to hear what is effectively well rehearses spats being hurled across the Dispatch Box.
I watched half an hour but could bear no more. In that time the MoPs listed all the things "cared for children" are likely to face when being sent out into the world. Some of them very very sobering.
I wouldn't have thought 4 years ago I could add one more to the list. But I think I can now. Being taken seriously!
One day - they maybe ready to learn the lesson. But gentlemen and ladies. Please finish your lunches.
Complain about this comment
There is a question to be asked for the future though. How many of us believed G.Brown when he said there would be no more boom and bust. It seems a great of us did or else why did people continue to vote Labour. Brown was able to create an illusion for us called 'no more boom and bust' that was swallowed by so many. I never voted Labour because I could not stand Blair, the war in Iraq, erosion of freedoms and I never believed anyone could cure boom and bust without the economy in complete balance or at least as near as possible. Why was it not being pointed out by both opposition parties that our looming debt would cause us immense harm. Could it be that they also half believed Brown, or could it be that (particularly the Conservative Party) had lost elections by saying cuts were needed or the state could no longer provide in the same way. Maybe for the future then we should encourage our politicians to be honest and not dismiss them when they are saying something we do not like to hear. No Government can be all things to all people in my opinion.
The second thing I feel we should look at is how this Government became so powerful. Where we have arrived at the situation were an unelected Peer is virtually running our Country. Was it because the population ignored the fact that our freedoms were disappearing, illegal war, our police were becoming politicized and all the moves this Government made to create big state and control the media were ignored in favour of the belief that the economy was doing fine and nothing else mattered. How right our politicians are to say 'it is the economy stupid.'
Is this now the time we wake up and make Brown the point at which we say never again will we allow any Government to gamble with our futures. Or do we slip back to the 70s where class war and strikes were the norm and begin the whole cycle again. You see I believe without a new way of thinking the nightmare will just begin again.
Complain about this comment
Sweety:
"You are just so wrong here.
Firstly, do not confuse truth with opinion."
How do you think them up? Is it deliberate or does it just happen?
Complain about this comment
I'm a bit confused that whenever I make any comment about Tories who have been proven to have lied (Jonathan Aitken, Jeffrey Archer etc) it gets referred to the moderators, but when some folk speculate about Brown lying it's acceptable. Why would this be? Presumably whoever keeps referring it prefers not to face reality.
Complain about this comment
subject matter cuts? Then i see government plans to limit joe publics use of plastic funds from the banks? what about GB excessive spending to get the country out of trouble putting it in more trouble in the long term Also just where has all that money gone that was earmarked for the NHS iam informed that no major reform has taken place in the Birmingham area in decades or has it all gone north of the boarder to our Scottish counterparts? Some one said it had gone on new managers to the same should we not see a few cuts in that direction instead? Just where is the truth mr brown
Complain about this comment
sagamix
"that's fundamentally incorrect - a person creates wealth (makes the rest of us richer) when the economic value of the work they do exceeds the amount they are paid to do it"
=====================================================================
Saga, so you're saying that by paying our public servants less for the work they do now they will create more wealth? It sounds good, but its rubbish isn't it.
Complain about this comment
Never mind the row about cuts, it's high time Gordon Brown explained what taxes will go up after his supposed wining of the next election.
If he wants to carry on spending he will be obliged to raise taxes; so on what or whom are you going to levy tax increases, Gordon.
Given the accepted wisdom that far too little is raised from tax rises on the richest (we've already ahd the piffling amount raised by the 50%) tax rate) it seems cler that broad based tax rises on VAT and all income earners are inevtable under any future labour administration.
Herein lies the dishonesty of the government and Gordon Brown's position; there wiould have to be massive tax increases after the nest election or the cost of their borrowing would simply be too much to bear.
There is no argumetn over laboutr investment and tory cuts; they are both going to cut and the former isn't happening anyway as we now know from yesterday's -13% moment in PMQs. So what taxes are labour planning to increase?
If he's sticks to his line of being honest Gordon Brown should be made to own up about just how much all this fantastic rescue is going to cost us all.
Call an election and let the debate begin.
Complain about this comment
Dear God, anyone else seen Brown's latest PR stunt.
Nauseating.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown is the guy who came up with the plan, while Chancellor, to sell off government owned buildings to private owners, have the private owners refurbish the buildings and then renting the same buildings back (a very rough explanation of his PFI plan for government buildings). It failed - surprise, surprise. We have no gold reserves left. We have nothing but mega debt ... what are these assets of which he speaks? And he wonders why we doubt his honesty. Dear, oh dear.
Complain about this comment
I see that hardly a day after the spat between Mandy and Osbourne we get an Investigation into Osbournes expenses - no coincidence there?
"The Commissioner John Lyon launched his investigation in response to a complaint by Laurie Burton, the chair of the local Labour Party in Mr Osborne's Tatton constituency."
Does Burton have no shame? Or did they suggested investigating all the labour mps too? Have any Conservatives ratted on labour mps in this way?
I'm not suggesting that investigating osbourne is wrong, just that its a tad hypocritical for a labour party chair to be complaining unless its even handed.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I think Brown looks at the UK as one big hedge fund a big bet that we recover in time and we know what happens if it does not work.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Efficiency savings in the public sector are only made when heads are removed from the payroll. A price worth paying, Mr Brown?
Complain about this comment
#55 deanthetory
'..We all need to remember Ireland, they have seen government revenues fall by 20% because their tax base is too heavily orientated upon the housing market (a bubble which has well and trully burst). Lets avoid having the same situation here; of falling governmental tax revenues and at the same junction increase in demand on government benefits during Browns recession.'
====
Err, bit late now, wouldn't you say? We've had the 'housing' boom (it was a credit boom that simply funnelled into property), now we have no option but to see the bubble explode. There is no get out, there is no solution other than to let the asset price fall to a sane level. That's historically 3 to 4 times average salary, i.e. £75,000 to £100,000.
It's been happening in the US for the last 30 months or so and it hasn't stopped yet. It won't stop here either until such time as prices return to their historical norm.
And the economy is going to pay a terrible price.
Complain about this comment
So Gordon's grand Plan is 1) Invest in Assets 2) Sell those assets (cheaply?) 3) use quantative easing to cover the difference 4) Apply for asylum in Zimbabwe
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
205 Susan Croft
Yes I agree, some of us were lulled into a strange state by "spin" there's that word again - it obviously was spin because we are indeed bust.
It seems that we will reach a point soon where we have to choose which way we go - sometimes we choose rightly. I am afraid to say I don't believe we will this time - we have been indoctrinated that money is the 'god' - the only thing worth having.
It's true you only miss something when it's gone - these freedoms we have lost you talk of will never be given back without a struggle and I think that is what we are having now. The struggle to make MP's do our bidding, represent our views and not their own after all we have to live by what they impose upon us.
I'm not holding my breath!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Well love him or hate him Teflon Tony has at least left behind him a joined up government.
Yep Duff, Mandy and Balls, all joined at the hip, without an ounce of truth between them.
Complain about this comment
#205 susan-croft
Your message is symptomatic of the issues in society.
"How many of us believed G.Brown when he said there would be no more boom and bust."
Well anyone who has read Das Kapital knew it was nonsense - the only end to the boom and bust is an alternative to the Capitalist system - a planned Economy. Unfortunately this means Communism which thanks to Stalin is then mis-interpreted as Facism by those who reject the ideas of Marx.
However it's not right that everyone should have to read all 3 volumes of Karl Marx (because I have - and it's very hard work) - but politicans prey on this and produce statement which we 'want to believe' - but which are actually untrue.
To be fair to Gormless he was mis-quoted slightly, I don't think he suggested an end to Boom and Bust - I think he actually said "No more Tory boom and bust" - which is not what we have - we have "Labour boom and bust"!!! - which is very similar but red instead of blue.
The issue about an unelected prime minister (which is what I presume you mean) has been covered on previous blogs. We don't have a presidential system and therefore the prime minister is never 'elected' - but selected from the majority party. Tony Blair was not elected by the country, he was elected by the constituents of sedgfield and chosen to lead the party when it came to power. There has never been an 'elected prime minister' in this country since parliment began (I believe).
However, once again this is how confusing the world has become. On the one side you have the Government who lie to protect us, themselves and each other, then you have the press who lie to sell papers, you have the politically motivated who lie to dissolve some of the apathy around and the people lie because their 'betters' are always doing it - so why not us too!
I do agree with your last sentiments - at the moment we're offered 2 choices - state control (by Labour) or Corporate control (by the Tories) - and there is no third alternative. The options are infinite, but these two parties are blinkered into thinking there are only 2 ways - and therefore never bother looking outside of it.
A fixed price Economy would rid us of inflation - remove the need for interest rate changes, and really would end 'Boom and Bust' forever - not even the free market loonies can argue with this. This doesn't mean we need to go down the whole Marx route as all the other features of Democracy could be retained.
However neither party would wear it because both parties are indebted to the real masters of the country - the corporations - and a fixed price scenario would mean there would be no way to make profit.
....and that is why the system remains - it's the greed of man (and woman) which keeps the system in place. Too many people think they deserve better than their neighbour and therefore are happy with the system. It's what happens when people are praised too much and give themselves an over-inflated sense of self-importance.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick
I understand that you have to cosy up to GB in order to get access to him, but your lack of questioning him over his honesty borders on the sycaphantic. When are you going to actually going to ask him some serious questions on this rather than just reporting that he is furious about questions over his honesty and integrity?
Come on Nick, forall our sakes before it's too late.
Complain about this comment
It is rather tiresome being told by our politicans what we want and think. Brown, Mandelson, Balls, etc think that if they keep repeating something that we will believe it. Wrong, we are not stupid and we are adults and want the truth, not more spin. This country has suffered under a government that are obsessed with tafgets, announcing initaives, more announcements, and no real improvements. We have lsot so many of our freedoms during the past 12 years it is frightening. Give us the opportunity to tell you what we think of you and your unelected cabinet members.
Complain about this comment
205 - Susan Croft
We get the Government we deserve. the populations desire to soak up positive spin and to shoot anyone that has a negative view creates the total lack of transparency which we have at the moment.
What party would expect to win support with a manifesto that included the following...
1) Big increases of taxation.
2) Cut backs on public spending.
3) Looks at the cost of the NHS.
Probably all things that will need to be done, but no-one is able to admit it due to the fear of wipe out in the polls. Surely this is as much about honesty in that these points won't be discussed, as much as anything that is actually said by GB
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The problem in handling a debate over government spending is the complete distortion that comes when PMs and other ministers equate increases of money spent with some sort of "improvement" for the public.
That is a nonsense. And it's why people don't believe so many government statements.
There are masses of Government departmental allocation and spending data available on-line. But it's hard to get down to the level of detail that allows any significant analysis of the potential value of the spend. So it's hard to find where money is not allocated (kept for contingency management) or eventually just not spent.
Brown and Co say that the GBP2BIL for new housing initiatives comes from existing planned spend, shuffled between departments (who didn't seem to have realised they were going to lose money). But the number of houses to be provided varies from the 110,000 Brown stated in the Commons to the 20,000 written in the governments document on the web-site. How can anyone believe public statements that have such vast variations in "probable outcome"?
Private sector companies are suffering. Brown would help if he issued an edict to say that all public employees (local or central) earning more than (say) GBP70,000 would have their salaries frozen until further notice. And any executive employed by a QANGO would have a maximum salary no higher than that of a Senior Cabinet Minister. QANGOs are simply used to allow ministers to hand-off delivery (and hence responsibility) to unelected bodies, rather than performing functions within the normal departmental environment. That's why they are so hard to pin down.
Complain about this comment
Nick
Just looking for an update on whether or not you've had a chance to put the queries raised in my comment 23 to Mr Brown?
If you think you won't get the chance to do this, perhaps you would be so good as to pass the queries on to one of Mr Brown's staff, perhaps with a suggestion that a reply is given to this blog.
Thanks.
Complain about this comment
Believe it and it must be true. Sums up Gordon Brown's world.
We don't believe him because what he says in the real world which the rest of us have to live in isn't true.
Talk about making a rod for his own back. He only has himself to blame for his lack of credulity with the public. He doesn't know whether he's coming or going. He's got the rest of us going giddy.
By the time he has to admit to making cuts he will be an even bigger laughing stock.
He is increasingly pitiful to watch and someone should be kind enough to help him out of his misery.
The world has to go on but preferably without Gordon Brown as PM.
Complain about this comment
So here we go again. Another post and comments confirming what we already know about Gordon Brown. I am still upset that he is making it so easy for David Cameron to become PM.
If Brown told the truth - good or bad - in a direct way (if his DNA allows him to tell truth in a straight and clear way) then people will believe him. Everyone knows what someone who is being 'economical with the truth' (irony here) looks like and it looks like GB. David Cameron has just got to utter platitudes to be believed because we don't demand the truth from him. Gordon's actions not challenges will force David to say something concrete.
At the moment DC's message is as confused and full of holes as GB's. I want to vote for a person with ideas I like - not the person whose ideas seem least shaky.
I am fed up with going over the same ground and it is all Gordon's fault. If he is incapable of moving on and setting new agendas he should go.
Complain about this comment
Can we believe any of G Brown's figures that he predicts? A small piece in a financial newsletter I subscribe to reported on the current situation regarding revenues from closing in on self-employed entities under IR35 legislation (i.e. collecting NI and other taxes on people who have set themselves up as limited companies but are, or so the government says, actually employees). Predicted by G Brown when introduced some years ago - revenues of £220 million per year. Actual revenues - £1.6 million (yes, there is a decimal point in there) annually. Less than 1%. If Brown (he was chancellor at the time) can get these projections so hopelessly wrong (at a time when the economy was much stronger and in less turmoil than it is today), then how are we supposed to believe ANYTHING he says regarding future tax revenues? Either he lies, or he is incompetent. Either way, he's not fit for purpose.
Complain about this comment
207 laughatthetories
"I'm a bit confused that whenever I make any comment about Tories who have been proven to have lied (Jonathan Aitken, Jeffrey Archer etc) it gets referred to the moderators,"
==============================
Your modded post did include a reference to Mark Thatcher as one of the so called "tories" you mention. I posted about this as I couldn't see the political relevance of Mark Thatcher (post 88), except as attempt to smear his mother by association. Perhaps this is why it was modded, though I would like to say it wasn't by me.
I would repeat the general point I made earlier, just because Gordon Brown has not been found guilty of perjury and sent to prison doesn't mean that we have to believe that everything he tells us is true.
He may not be as bad as Aitken and Archer but that really isn't very much, and leaves considerable scope for a creatively distorted view of reality which is not entirely consistent with actual events. His inability and unwillingless to give a simple, straight and relevant answer to any question put to him does him no favours either.
Complain about this comment
213 sweetanybody
"I see that hardly a day after the spat between Mandy and Osbourne we get an Investigation into Osbournes expenses - no coincidence there?"
===================================
The timing is certainly curious and invites suspicion - as does everything concerning Mandelson !
I'm not really sure that this is a good time for MPs in glass houses to start throwing stones like this. But neither Mandelson or the person making the complaint are MPs.
It is inconceivable that this potentially politically dangerous complaint could have been made by such a Labour Party Member on their own initiative, without the "ok" ie being prompted from the very top of the party ie Mandelson.
Complain about this comment
Brown tells us his Minister father taught him not to lie. He should either respect his father or give us an explanation of his view of lying. To me it is simple , its not telling the truth, he doesnt tell the truth and its obvious from his facial expression when he isnt. Just look at his face when Cameron asked him about Darling being his frst choice Chancellor.
His father would have seen it as well.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
207. Laughatthetories wrote:
"Presumably whoever keeps referring it prefers not to face reality."
=============
Sorry I forgot to add that that comment would put Gordon Brown in the frame !!!
Complain about this comment
three days with GB ..you get all the good assignments, the rest of the world's media are in neverland! anyway you will get the opportunity to test the "lies".. Ask his about this episode....... In his book Servants of the People, Andrew Rawnsley recounts an explosion from the then Chancellor after he had been challenged during a radio interview about what he knew of Bernie Ecclestones £1 million donation to the Labour Party.
According to Rawnsley, a highly agitated Brown afterwards yelled at aides: I lied. If this gets out, Ill be destroyed.
Also look him straight in the eye and ask him if AD is his first choice as chancellor..... I bet he swallows and blinks before answering....
Complain about this comment
Nick, you say He defines the word narrowly, though, to describe efficiency savings and assets sales and claims that these will allow him to protect front-line spending
There in a nutshell is the whole problem. Brown's idea of 'front-line' spending includes anything and everything. We need to protect front-line services, not front-line spending.
Even within the NHS, the aim should be to improve the service - not just throw money at it and hope for the best. This government has an appalling track-record on delivery. The more it interferes, the worse it gets.
Big Government is not the answer. People are fed up with all this micro-management - ID cards, CCTV cameras on every street corner, pretend-police (community support officers) who won't rescue a drowning child because of Health and Safety regulations etc.
Labour has the Midas Touch in reverse.
Complain about this comment
#224, writingsonthewall wrote:
Your message is symptomatic of the issues in society.
"How many of us believed G.Brown when he said there would be no more boom and bust."
Well anyone who has read Das Kapital knew it was nonsense - the only end to the boom and bust is an alternative to the Capitalist system - a planned Economy. Unfortunately this means Communism which thanks to Stalin is then mis-interpreted as Facism by those who reject the ideas of Marx....
...I do agree with your last sentiments - at the moment we're offered 2 choices - state control (by Labour) or Corporate control (by the Tories) - and there is no third alternative. The options are infinite, but these two parties are blinkered into thinking there are only 2 ways - and therefore never bother looking outside of it.
A fixed price Economy would rid us of inflation - remove the need for interest rate changes, and really would end 'Boom and Bust' forever - not even the free market loonies can argue with this..."
Great idea. Global control of all people everywhere on the planet, to ensure that whatever is produced will be at a fixed price. That should lock billions of people into poverty for ever. Should also stiffle innovation, as it's hard to put a fixed price on somethng that doesn't yet exist.
The USSR (massive country with extraordinary range of resources) tried that sort of nonsense. Do you really believe the majority of Russian or other peasants under communism wanted to live in squalor or be dependent on political favours to access any sort of standard of living?
Or do you imagine you'd be one of the privileged few, able to control the masses, rather than one of the poor suckers who lived on hand-outs?
Complain about this comment
Nick, have just read a nice article in the Times about the choo choo ride Duffs on. It also mentions you so I thought you should read it.
Most people buy a ticket. Gordon Brown buys the entire franchise.
I especially liked the last paragraph:
Here's a theory: Mr Bean is turning back into Stalin. This week, Mr Brown gave us his National Plan. Now hes ruling from a train. (Soon well get those tractor production figures in full with 0 per cent rises all round.) Still, if his train is late, at least the company has a great excuse: the wrong sort of Prime Minister was on the line.
Complain about this comment
Nick. Just an afterthought, its obviously to late this time, but next time be prepared. Take a bible with you and at the onset ask him (Duff) to swear under oath.
I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
The result should be very interesting.
Nick just one word of advice, make sure he holds the bible in his left hand and has his right hand in the air.
Complain about this comment
If, as Gordon claims, he has his finger on the pulse of what UK voters want then why doesn't he go to the country and get a new mandate. Then, we can show him how much we know and care about debt or even how much we trust what he is doing about jobs and housing.
The only thing that grows with this government is the contempt for the public and size of the lies they tell to cover their inadequacies.
Complain about this comment
Having just spent some time reading today's comments about Nick's Brown interview, I can see that many are furious about their comments being removed as being 'off-topic'. All of my comments were removed for the same reason and I am just so incredibly sad that OUR BBC is censoring anything that is remotely critical of Gordon Brown (or Nick Robinson?).
Surely, when you invite comments on a particularly contentious topic, you must expect responses to not only comment about the topic but also about the writer. After all the context of this particular topic has been shaped to make sure the GB is seen in a more favourable light.
I don't think Nick Robinson is particularly biased but he is presenting a very unbalanced view of the argument because he won't ask the question that we all want to hear: "Prime Minister, Why won't you admit to what we all know and stop treating us all like children?"
"We all know the Nation's finances are a mess, yet you won't admit it and keep saying that you are going to invest. What with? We're broke!
Nick, I have 6 grandchildren and I despair for their future if GB is re-elected next year. People like me rely on impartial journalists to get to the truth no matter what their personal affiliation may be. We will never know the real truth while GB is allowed to get away with these blatant lies.
You will have my everlasting respect if you would just do your job and fight for the truth!
Complain about this comment
Noone seems to have pointed out yet that if there are cuts in public spending (as I am sure there will be), they will focus first and foremost on the private sector. There are a huge number of private sector companies and employees whose jobs are dependent on public sector contracts. These will be the first to go for two reasons: 1) It is much easier and cheaper not to renew contracts than to make staff redundant; 2) Cuts have to be implemented by the Civil Service, who always look at cutting others rather than their own. If you need evidence of this, look at education. Where was the first cut? The £100m private contract with Capita. Even The Telegraph is suggesting that the next education cut should be the consultancy provided by KPMG.
The tories are committed to a reduction in the programme for re-building schools. I am sure Labour will scale this back too. Virtually all of the costs for this are spent in the private sector and it is billions. (Oh and by the way icewombat #143, I have visited about 20 new build schools this year and only 2 of them were PFI). Builders, electricians, roofers, plumbers, IT companies, carpet fitters, furnishing companies, etc and the suppliers to all of these trades will be hit very hard. Many of the other suggestions such as cancelling Trident, cancelling the NHS database, ID cards etc will also affect very few public sector workers.
If the government manages to force the civil service to cut numbers they will adopt the 'Yes Minister' tactic of doing exactly that. They will cut the numbers by redesignating government bodies as agencies. A common tactic since the 1980s. I am 100% certain that at the end of the next parliament, there will be more public sector employees directly employed by the government than there are now - whoever wins the election.
Complain about this comment
#240 saga
I was going to say what an excellent blog but somebody might jump in and say I fancy you. So afraid I cant.
Just one correction to your comment.
Duff will be looking much, much, further than rjd to pick up the tab for the debt he has created.
Complain about this comment
this man was in charge of our finances
Zero% movement mean rise ???
Has Prudence been put up for adoption ???
Boom and Bust???
I suppose Cuts will mean Investment and to think that the World thinks he is the answer to the global slowdown
thats what it is, he talks opposites
eg.we WILL have a referendum on the treaty
"Trust me, Peter and Labour to get us out of this Global slowdown"
actually means follow me fellow Lemmings
Complain about this comment
Yes, I agree with several of the other posters here regarding the BBC's failure to pursue the truth as a general rule. It seems to me that the BBC is obsessed with putting both sides of the argument even when it's blindingly obvious that one of the parties to the news item is lying.
Gordon Brown is a liar. Why does the BBC not hound Gordon Brown and the Labour Government for the truth, rather than constantly trying to balance Brown's lies with some guff about the other individuals'/parties' views?
The BBC would better fulfil its remit as a public service broadcaster if it did the public a service and strived tirelessly to establish the truth behind this Government's pathological tendency to deceive the electorate.
No wonder so many are calling for the BBC to be abolished as a waste of taxpayers' money.
Complain about this comment
failyopenminded, if I may...
That should lock billions of people into poverty for ever.
--
Why? The moderation of growth would ensure we could allocate the resources of the world better. Instead of an EEC food mountain (created to maintain market prices) we could ensure all the people in the world were fed - we could fix prices so we can make sure those who need it most can pay less.
--
Should also stiffle innovation as it's hard to put a fixed price on somethng that doesn't yet exist.
--
Only for those people who's sole motivation is money. Does Trevor Bayliss invent for the money? Does Richard Branson innovate for the money? (because he must have enough to retire with!), look at some of the 'inventors' of the past - the inventor was often robbed of his wealth by a sharp entrepenuer. The price would be dictated by the innovations use to society (and not simply it's monetary value) - how about an x-factor style vote!
--
The USSR (massive country with extraordinary range of resources) tried that sort of nonsense. Do you really believe the majority of Russian or other peasants under communism wanted to live in squalor or be dependent on political favours to access any sort of standard of living?
--
True, but the USSR was never a communist state (not that it's relevant as I am only suggesting a fixed price system - not the setting up of soviets!) - it tried to go from a peasant state to something which we can only start to achieve today. Fixing prices is / would be complicated - but there weren't computers and the internet in 1912. We also have an urgen need to stop the maket dictating prices - because it doesn't account for 'future unknowns' i.e. the amount of oil in the ground, the planets resource limit. The market will continue to underprice oil and other natural resources until someone looks in the tank and it's empty - then panic.
--
Or do you imagine you'd be one of the privileged few, able to control the masses, rather than one of the poor suckers who lived on hand-outs?
.....and the difference to the current system is.....?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#254 saga
Your opening statement really leaves me with a loss for words.
Why do you need to use derogatory language and terms like that for? You dont need it, so please raise the bar.
With regards your thesis, forgive me, I cant really see a question. The point that comes across to me is that everybody in Britain is overpaid. Are to talking about the distribution of wealth? In a Global sense.
Please expand.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
roll @ 255
no question? - that's good because it means all is clear - yes, I do mean that - it's why, when I hear the tory type sentiment that we've been "living beyond our means", I agree but only with this particular slant - we pay ourselves too much ... some more than others, obviously! ... and that's only possible because others are paid too little - think it's good to recognise that, rather than focus only on inequality in the UK (criminal though that is)
ooo hang on, got to dash ... H is on QT!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Ah, trolls and clowns, yes partly understand. However, all this overpaid comes back to good old Robinson Crusoe. You could have paid him in dollars, yen, whatever, you can't do much in his world except maybe burn it. His wealth was what he could make, his shelter, his clothes, catch his next meal et al.
Same goes for our nation, our wealth is what we can make, not the useless dollars smart bankers think they earn. Our primary industries are all but gone. we are losing all our industrial capacity because euroland finds it easier to close plants here than in the rest of europe.Money is not wealth it's only a means of exchange! You have to manufacture your wealth. Right now this sad island is heading down the nearest plughole, and yes Gordon will say its not his fault again!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Growth is the answer but only if that growth is sustainable and self generating. Artificial growth through government spending on schemes that will not a return in terms of future wealth creation funded by debt is not sustainable nor self generating. You can achieve a short period of growth through perusing the policies that Gordon Brown is now following but once the money is used up you have to borrow more. And so it goes on. Advantage: you can create the dillusion that you have got the country out of recession and if you can succeed in fooling the public to buy into this argumnent win an election off the back of it. Disadvantage: eventually people stop lending to you at which point economies that are heavily dependent on continued borrowing collapse.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I floated the idea on here yesterday that truth was not necessarily a 'black & white' thing, but was subjective and depended on your own perspective of things. A couple of you slapped me down...can't remember who, and frankly can't be bothered to go back and check...which is fair enough. I wish I lived in your so-certain world.
For years people have been saying 'if only politicians would own up when they make a mistake, we'd forgive them and move on'. This, I believe, is Gordon Brown's failing rather than, as someone once put it, 'being economical with the truth'. He uses language, very poor language admittedly, to attempt to back-edit what he previously said, instead of just saying 'sorry, made a balls-up, this is what I should have said'.
Unfortunately for him and Labour it is probably too late now to become 'straight' with the public.....far too much, 12 years worth, of back-editing to do in 10 months.
Interesting pieces by Jeff Randall (Telegraph) and Roy Hattersley (Times) today (or at least I just read them today). Both seem to think it's curtains for Labour. Brown certainly isn't capable of pulling them together.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I will say that the Cameron strategy of 'playing the man' may yield results in may regions of England; but up in Scotland the sheer negativity of the strategy has oversaw a 7% fall in or Scottish numbers (according to TNS system 3 polls).
I will say that this polling agent does seem to historically underestimate the Scottish Cons with an averge on 10%- while YouGov has out avergae signifcantly higher on our 1997 figures of 17%.
Its all conserning however as what if the TNS polling turns out to be correct? Mr Cameron and our English counterparts may find that the Midlands alone does not a majority maketh.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Susan Croft you are being unfair.
Michael Howard led the Conservatives in 2005 to a budget 'cutting' programme. The public rejected it, but to suggest that the Conservatives simply stopped advocating a reduction in the need for public spending since is unfair.
The only Conservatives seeking an increase in public expenditure where the Cameronites in the parliamentary party; but even they have since dropped their silly idea of "matching Labours public spending plans" penny for penny.
I think its time the electorate got over their historic fear of voting Conservative, as it is clear that we are the only party remotely economically reliable.
Oh and an interesting thing for everyone to consider is the depth and length of the 1992 recession compared to this current one; given that Labour constantly refer to 'black wednesday'. The stats charts show clearly that the 1992 downturn was shorter lived and less deep than this current New Labour downturn. Lets all keep it in mind that there is a reason that good practical Tory policies of tight management over public spending makes us the practical solution to a recession caused by overspending and borrowing.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#275 middleenglandtim
I agree with you , truth is not black and white when used in connection with ideas or the future, it requires a point of reference and in political debate neither side uses the same reference point usually. Each side selects a point of reference and method of expression (e.g. numbers or percentage or ratios) which is favourable to their position. Hence the poor level of debate currently in vogue in the political world.
Truth and fact are often confused as being the same, facts are always true but a truth is not always a fact.
Many ordinary people would forgive and move on if politicians admitted making a mistake. Oppositions and the rarified media atmosphere do not - they roll it out again and again to suggest that anything that person suggests for the future will also be wrong without any evidence or facts to support the assertion (guilt by association). The 24 hour media/soundbite driven world is not conducive to good political debate or good decisions.
We want to know now - what is the decision now, what are you going to do about that now. U turn is used as a term of abuse, delaying a decision until more facts are established (to make a better decision) is seen as indecision and dithering. Both are seen as negative and striking the balance is not easy.
Politicians to be fair do not help themselves, the phrase, sorry but I haven't all the information to make a good decision yet, is sorely underused. Too often they cave to pressure to decide now.
We have seen the effects of this largely media driven circus time and again - through bad laws and bad decisions hastily made to be seen to be doing something in response to public pressure (in reality this is media pressure driven by a very few people). The law of unintended consequences strikes again and again.
This mornings reports on not learning from mistakes in health care are symptomatic of the same thing. People are scared stiff to say sorry or admit an error as they will be pilloried - they will not have the opportunity to learn since they will be fired, fined and/or banned from working. So they do the human thing and try to minimise the consequences for themselves and try to hide it.
This is a result of the compensation and legal retribution culture. Many times we hear people say all I wanted was an apology - but the culture is driven by the minority who seek as much financial gain (not just recompense for damage which is emminently fair) as possible. Saying sorry is seen as admission of guilt - and where legal frameworks get involved this is fatal - it why when you have a car accident the one thing (even if you know it is your fault at the time) you are not supposed to say is sorry, otherwise your insurer can void your cover.
Because so many of our politicians are legally trained this culture extends into politics much more than it does in the 'real' world. They cannot help it, their thinking is hardwired that way. Saying sorry just doesn't come easy as they are always thinking of the possible consequences. Will I have to resign, will it end my career progression,will it affect my ability to earn if I have to leave politics early, will I be sued, will it result in huge legal bills or costs to my department/taxpayer.
Brown is clearly a deep slow thinker, he wants every piece of information covering every single possible risk or variance. Hence is is seen to dither (and is abused for it). When pressed to make quick decisions, which is what a PM has to do many times, he is lost, it is why he interviews poorly and looks awkward and quickly reverts to stock phrases and pat answers when pressed. Rarely do you get an engaged response to unexpected questions not anticipated, stock phrases just come out.
He is not cut out to be a good PM, and it shows, and sadly for him I think he knows it too. Having found it out very quickly after getting the job he always wanted - and finding he wasn't very good at it.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
288 Whistling_Neil
"bad laws and bad decisions" - surely this is what they do in the HofP disucss, discuss, discuss. But after all this they still get it wrong - seems like they are in the wrong job?
As regard your "Brown is a slow thinker" - yes, not the right character surely for this job so don't you think he should step down?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"I've always told the truth," Thats one big lie, when questioned on tv reference to the 10p tax debacle he said "there will be NO losers", soon after we find out there will be over 5 million losers. Does he really take us all for fools? I guess he does, but our time will come, for sure Brown.
Complain about this comment
A large number of rejected comments today. Well, we knew cuts were coming.
Gordon Brown's stated policy is increased borrowing, asset sales, and slashing capital expenditure in future years.
He calls this investment, but actually it's the opposite. Borrowing is being increased, and investment is being cut, to pay for current expenditure. When it's spent there are no assets and no investment.
Leaving aside the question of honesty we can reasonably say that Labour have presided over a political culture of spin (financed by the taxpayer), stealth taxes, brazen breaking of manifesto commitments (the European Constitution), and now stealth cuts dressed up as investment.
This corruption of political language was predicted by George Orwell. Fortunately democracy is not yet dead. The defeat of Labour at the next election will be Birnan Wood coming to Dunsinane to slay MacBeth.
Complain about this comment
202 JR
"you have managed to make him look a bit biased and silly" Thanks.
I think you have managed to make yourself look a bit biased and silly too by your constant attempts to portray Nick as biased against the Tories and Brown as a liar. You have no real evidence of either - it's an opinion based on specualation. Yhe point I keep making which keeps getting referred is that we know the Tories have lied in the past - they have, in some cases, gone to prison for it. The case against Brown is at worst unproven and mostly based on guesswork.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
er...why have virtually all this morning's entries been retrospectively referred to the moderator??
Anyway, Whistling_Neil, thanks for your agreement....it's a first for me!!
A good dose of honesty, straight talking and plain English would go a long way in politics. We all know cuts are needed, and will happen. The arguement should be about where they fall, by how much and what the effect will be.....not if they happen.
Btw....Something I've noticed on my intermittent visits to this forum.....Mr Robinson never seems to work on a Friday?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Sixteen MPs are calling for chairman Lord Jay to withdraw the comments (That Michael Martin would diminish rather than enhance the Lords).
They have signed a Commons motion saying they were "dismayed" to read about the comments in the Guardian newspaper - adding Mr Martin had "served this House so well as an elected member with great integrity, charm and good temper".
As you can see from the above story the way in which our political
representatives see things is quite a bit different from the rest of
society. They see Michael Martin's move to the Lords as a fitting
end to his Commons career. It's this sort of arrogant posturing that
sends out such a negative picture of our political class.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
301 Poprishchin
If only we could propose 'cuts' in the Lords - we all knew this would be the final destination for Speaker Martin. It's does seem the cuts are only suitable when it affects 'joe public'.
Why we allow this to go on amazes me - I know someone has to be in charge but this is an almighty strange way of running GB. The 'land of MP's' seems to be run for the sole purpose of shielding them from real life.
Plus the fact that we now have proposals that will mean retirement at 70. Laughable - ok some 'older' people are very active but it conjures up people who can barely walk without a zimmer frame trudging down the road to compulsory employment - I ask you - is this really what we want.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
297 Ghostworld
#I Understand your point Sutara. I read many of the now deleted posts and some of them were just plain harmless banter, which is perfectly healthy on any blog, and god knows we need plenty of humour. I get the impression someone is just being trigger happy and don't believe the mods ever really read the comments referred they just press delete regardless
So you have changed your mind since I've been away. it was you that deemed it necessary to refer my posts because they referred to you as Casper, does'nt sit to easily with your above comment does it.
Sorry to bring it up but it triggered up something in what I like to call my brain, I'll try not to mention it again.Casper that is not my brain.
Complain about this comment
300 diabloandco
#Strange though , when I complained of its usage to the mods , they told me that it did not break any rule
To have that information you must of referred yourself, old chum, and about" vacuous poshboys " how pathetic was that considering all the abusive names that are piled on the PM and the government on these blogs.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
So much for free speech.
It appears that all my posts are consigned to Moderation Oblivion.
Don't forget - Gordon Brown has ushered in the era of: -
"Buy Now, Pay later Politics"
Keep on digging everyone and the truth will be revealed.
I shall bid you all farewell - before the Labour Henchmen catch up with me.
At what shall be the name of Brown's Great British state?
IRAN2
Complain about this comment
306. At 1:15pm on 03 Jul 2009, grandantidote wrote:
297 Ghostworld
#I Understand your point Sutara. I read many of the now deleted posts and some of them were just plain harmless banter, which is perfectly healthy on any blog, and god knows we need plenty of humour. I get the impression someone is just being trigger happy and don't believe the mods ever really read the comments referred they just press delete regardless
So you have changed your mind since I've been away. it was you that deemed it necessary to refer my posts because they referred to you as Casper, does'nt sit to easily with your above comment does it.
Sorry to bring it up but it triggered up something in what I like to call my brain, I'll try not to mention it again.Casper that is not my brain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm afraid to dissapoint you Grandy, but i didn't referr any of your posts that called me Casper.. And why would i anyway, i hardly think calling me Casper is offensive
Complain about this comment
nick
Just read on the internet" Saddam: "I lied about WMD in fear of Iran".
That will put the cat amonst the pigeons when the Iraq inquiry comes up don't you think.
Complain about this comment
Ha, I wrote I preferred ITN news and they moderated it.
Very childish n'est pas?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Actually come to think of it Grandantidote it wasn't you ( under Grandantidote) who referred to me as Casper ... MMMM Do you use multiple user names
Complain about this comment
Apparently cuts isn't the only c word used by Mr Brown if Paul Waugh is to be believed
http://waugh.standard.co.uk/2009/07/gordon-brown-and-his-norwich-mps.html
Complain about this comment
314
You may be interested to know there is a Times campaign to have more openess in the Family courts. Have aa look for articles by Camilla Cavendish
Complain about this comment
Isn't 'zero percent growth' the same as 'zero percent cuts'? Does GB only open his mouth to change feet?
Complain about this comment
deanthetory 279
Dean you have to recognise that the Conservatives and the Lib/Dems only came off Labours spending plans when it became blindingly obvious to everyone that we were in a financial hole. The reason in my opinion was that unless the public were made aware that cuts in our public sector would have to come because of our spiralling debt they would never have voted for the Conservatives or the Lib/Dems in an election.
Michael Howard did as you say make moves in the last election to say that the banks were not holding enough capital to lending and that our public sector debt was increasing year on year. The correct thing to do in my opinion. If at the time you worked in any parts of the financial sector you could see this crisis coming down the line and you knew it was going to be big. We had such a credit bubble building over years not months that the end could only be bad.
My post therefore was a warning in a sense that Politicians must be allowed to tell the truth to the public. If we continue with this attitude that 'do not tell the public' because they are in fear of the media shouting cuts all the time how will we ever move forward.
The public and the media also must wake up in this Country and realise that if a Government has no honour in how it deals with things like going to war and freedoms etc they will certainly have no honour with issues like the economy. Brown was allowed to make claims such as 'no more boom and bust' and was well supported by the media in doing so. He was hailed as the greatest Chancellor ever. There were a lot of us in ordinary life who thought he was the worst Chancellor ever, but who expressed that opinion, who put another side to the argument that this man was overspending and would lead us into disaster.
Now if we get a new Government I have no faith that they will make the really tough decisions and make it clear to the public that the way we run our economy in this Country is fundamentally flawed. Wealth creation is the only way to make all the changes to our public sector and infrastructure that we need. This can only be done by forcing our people back to work into the private sector instead of benefits, encouraging business with low taxation and allowing people in work to keep more of their own money to spend.
When Major left office in 1997, he left an economy that was virtually a perfect balance between the private and public sector and the treasury had a nice little nest egg. If Brown had used the money wisely he could have encouraged business, created wealth, lowered taxes, even gone into flat tax which I am a great fan of, in the 12 years of growth we had. This would have created wealth for all the public works that we needed. Instead he chose to spend beyond our means and concentrate on the City which was left unregulated.
Now it is going to be extremely difficult with rising unemployment and so many dependent on the state to convince the public that we cannot carry on in this way. Brown has again created an illusion it is called the 'class war of the 70s' and so I say to you, unless in this Country we establish a new way of doing things the old circle will just begin again. I know very well what I am saying is very unpopular and that people believe in a fair society everyone should be looked after. Yes this is true for the sick, the elderly and those who through no fault of their own cannot work. However we must move away from this society of envy and into one where work pays and money only goes to the deserving. We must get tough on immigration so as to get our people off benefits into work and move closer to full employment. Education is the key to give people the skills to succeed, this Government has destroyed that.
So unless things change in the minds of the public, the media and Government we can look forward to more of Browns boom and bust in the future, in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
316. At 1:58pm on 03 Jul 2009, skynine wrote:
Apparently cuts isn't the only c word used by Mr Brown if Paul Waugh is to be believed
http://waugh.standard.co.uk/2009/07/gordon-brown-and-his-norwich-mps.html
----------------------------
Given the recent behaviour of some of his previously closest colleagues and the number of knives he'd have in his back if not for Peter 'Kevin Costner' Mandelson, then the descriptive word alleged in the article is somewhat understandable...
Complain about this comment
315 Ghostworld
#I'm afraid to dissapoint you Grandy, but i didn't referr any of your posts that called me Casper.. And why would i anyway, i hardly think calling me Casper is offensive
I was'nt the first to to call you Casper thats quite true I think that was Saga but I referred to you as Casper in a number of posts as I tried to get you to lighten up, you were new to the blog at that time and you went to great lengths to tell me that you got the name from a comic book and film character, You did refer me several times and at that time to your credit you admitted that you had, its very easy to check. but lets not quarrel over something as silly as this, I am glad that you have now developed a much lighter approach to the remarks on these bloggs and hopefully got into the spirit of the banter that takes place here.
Complain about this comment
This used to be a forum where free specch was welcome. No longer!
Complain about this comment
George Osborne says "We're going to protect the poorest, we're going to protect the vulnerable, but we're going to deal with the debt crisis because, let me say this, I've got young children, many people watching this programme have got young children, and it is not fair to leave them with our debt. We have to deal with the situation now and not leave the problem to another generation."
For poorest read those with only £1m estate (I'm ok there).
For vunerable rich read shareholder who's company has been mismanaged.
Deal with the debt crisis read cut everything to the bone today to shorten the pay back time. As for not being fair to leave debt to another generation, I have had to payback the debt from the last war, the debt incurred by the Thatcher years of destroying society, debt is like a mortgage if you pay it over a long time you can afford it, to pay it over a short term you must suffer to pay it off. Anyhow maybe the asset sales of RBS etc. will bring in a goodly sum towards it. Unfortunately G.O. doesn't understand the principles of economics merely the political misrepresentaion and the instilling fear of it, he still has the cheeck to accuse GB of lying!
Complain about this comment
#277
To br frank Idon't think that Mr Cameron will base his policies on converting the Scottish vote.
On current voting trends the conservatives will gain 3 seats in scotland so even if Mr Cameron were to suggest that all scots should be 'hung drawn and quartered'(which he obviously won't!) or , even worse, forced to support Manchester United his potential loss is not great and no doubt would be more than offsett by gains in England.
To be honest I would let Scotland receive complete devolution and even give them North Sea Oil revenues and let them arrange their own tax and spend policy. I would, however, arrange for all Public Sector jobs that affect England to be brought back south of Hadrian's wall.
Complain about this comment
re 316
What a bunch of Charles Clarkes MPs are!
Look at the latest nonsense that's got them riled: Which party is the gayest?
Complain about this comment
321. At 2:14pm on 03 Jul 2009, grandantidote wrote:
315 Ghostworld
#I'm afraid to dissapoint you Grandy, but i didn't referr any of your posts that called me Casper.. And why would i anyway, i hardly think calling me Casper is offensive
I was'nt the first to to call you Casper thats quite true I think that was Saga but I referred to you as Casper in a number of posts as I tried to get you to lighten up, you were new to the blog at that time and you went to great lengths to tell me that you got the name from a comic book and film character, You did refer me several times and at that time to your credit you admitted that you had, its very easy to check. but lets not quarrel over something as silly as this, I am glad that you have now developed a much lighter approach to the remarks on these bloggs and hopefully got into the spirit of the banter that takes place here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do remember admitting to referring one or two of your posts Grandy, but it was as said one or two. But i do agree with your comments on the banter, as with many of these types of communication it is hard to fathom if one is being deliberately rude or just having a lighthearted banter ... Although it would appear light banter is also under scrutiny
Complain about this comment
292. Japanbytes
Parliament does discuss things endlessly but fundamentally laws are rarely substantively changed from the form in which they are originally tabled. Recent governments have proposed too many new laws so proper scrutiny is just not possible, I would defy any MP to claim to have read and considered every word in every bill they have voted on.
The number of new offences legislated for is staggering in recent times, the solution to every issue is have a law against it.
Our system of democracy having given large majorities to most of the recent governments means that effectively what the government wants it gets. The Lords is an irrelevance which seems only to exist these days to permit unelected ministers to be appointed. I can remember back to days when there was a possibility that the Lords voting would be able to stop or force moderation in bad laws. Remember the guillotine and how awful the lords should stop the commons doing what it wanted discussions were, I can't recall any for a long while yet in any bill of substance. In reforming it in the half witted way it has been done it has been reduced to irrelevance which was the intent I guess.
Quality and quantity rarely go together, this is one of the problems with the current parliament, too much quantity not enough quality = a statement which can go to both the number of MPs and the number of laws/bills passed.
The bad laws passed compound the problem since to resolve problems created by them more and more laws are required. Every legal challenge or legal reversal caused by bad drafting means yet more waste of time.
However reforming it and improving it is also one of those things which should be carefully considered - a reason I am happy we did not have an election called in the midst of the expenses debacle, that would have been a disaster. Whilst most people who can be bother to comment woudl give consideration there is a sizeable minority (majority?) who would have gone for the visceral retribution and we could have ended up with a disasterous result.
So to get to you second question - I agree Brown is unsuited to being PM , and am sure there are those in Labour who knew it before he was annointed, shame one of them did not step forward then to force the fight.
I think it would have been honourable for him to have stepped down as soon as he realised it himself about 20 odd months ago.
We would have had an election, Cameron would be PM with a small majority and we would have a strong opposition which could hold him to account. Now we will get most likely a very weak opposition and another landslide majority government - it is unhealthy for any country when that occurs.
For now I prefer him to stay - the resultant election of him going now would be worse than the alternative of him staying.
He can't do much more damage to his own party or the country than has already happened.
Complain about this comment
"I've always told the truth," - As truth is subjective and depends on perspective, anybody can say those words. That's what they are - words - and they come from the mouth of our Prime Minister. That says it all really.
Truth isn't black and white, it always exists in the grey area with varying degrees of shade. Unfortunately, I think Gordon's truth is a far darker shade than most law abiding citizens.
He is furious that the current debate focuses on his integrity and his honesty - Isn't that the point though, where and when exactly has he proved himself worthy of being considered to have those qualities?
He's merely furious and throwing a tantrum because he knows that people dislike him and don't trust him for good reason. People are waking up and realising exactly what Gordon Brown has given us, they see the picture as it is, with unbiased clarity, and they know that Gordon Brown has shown his colours.
Today, he also declared that current spending would go up by "zero per cent" - And here my mind goes back to the phrase "No time for a novice". I think it would be a minority of the people in this country who would associate growth with 0% and yet Gordon is the one in charge of the country. I think Gordon Brown is demonstrating his abilities quite well in this area, our "supposedly" greatest Chancellor ever bringing unprecedented continued growth to this country considers 0% to be growth. No wonder this country's economy is such a mess. Gordon probably thought that growth meant a growth in public debt, which he has achieved extremely well. Gordon, you should feel so proud of yourself, you'lll go down in British history for all the wrong reasons and you'll still come out of politics with a career and wages that most of us can only dream of.
the debate about debt, which he believes is obsessing the Westminster village, but not the country. - Um, hello, Gordon, is anybody home? We have soaring public debt, taxpayer money tied up in banks to unprecedented levels, we're in a recession so growth is clearly out of the question right now, people are thinking about their futures and realising that debt causes more problems in the long term as our country shows (I'm thankful we're not like Iceland yet). We have soaring personal debt levels, people losing jobs, businesses going under, banks not lending, mortgage backlogs piling up, cuts in wages and bills still need to be paid and the man at the top claims that we're not worried. Maybe he's not worried, we've been paying his personal debts on expenses, Gordon's definition of the word debt comes from the Gordon Brown Dictionary. Who, in this country, isn't worried about debt?
People care, he tells me, about jobs and housing now and not unknowable public expenditure figures for several years hence. - I care, does that not make me a person? Considering the short termism views that this government has been criticising and this is what Gordon Brown comes up with. I care about the long term public expenditure of this country because it will affect my entire life, it will affect the taxes I pay in the future, it will affect all aspects of everyday life in all areas of the country. AND Gordon Brown thinks ignoring or denying the debt will simply make it go away. Continued spending and investment only creates a heavier burden for the future, which someone has to pay, we live in an ageing population and Gordon doesn't want us to think about the future. Under Gordon Brown's view on things, where will I be in 50 years? I can't even bring myself to think about a future under Gordon Brown's view on things but I'm sure they would be very dark times indeed but at least Gordon Brown wouldn't have to worry about it then, would he? His long term vision is until the next election and then what high salary job he'll be able to get on with next and then he'll be sitting tight until pension time where he'll be able to do jobs that don't involve much work for a high salary and living off the taxpayer with a pension entitlement he doesn't deserve. Well, at least he'll have Fred as a good example to follow, Destroy the country then run away from it all while living up the good life that very few people who have worked far harder in their lives will never obtain.
that growth is the best answer to the problem of public debt. - So over the last ten years of growth what happened? We had spiralling debt reaching unprecedented levels under Gordon Brown. If growth is the answer, why didn't he deal with the debt in the "supposed" good years? My personal opinion is, why build up huge levels of debt? Then you don't have to deal with it. Also as growth happens, spending will increase thereby denting the impact growth will have. Combine this with the fact that it will take many years to pay off the debt we currently have without taking in to account growth. AND Gordon claims that New Labour are the party of investment, haven't we invested enough in debt already?
He defines the word narrowly, though, to describe efficiency savings and assets sales and claims that these will allow him to protect front-line spending. - A very vague answer from a Prime Minister who clearly doesn't know what he's doing. Wasn't it a problem of the banks that had leaders who didn't know what they were doing that helped contribute to the failure of the businesses. Yet here we are with a Prime Minister who clearly doesn't understand anything about the people or running the country effectively. It's time to sack this head before he takes us further in to the red, especially when he thinks that we can continue the same levels of spending up to the next election with no need to worry about paying anything back.
This country needs 2 things right now having read all this:
1. An election (surprise surprise)
2. CUTS! (You hear me Gordon, we need cuts and we need to start paying off the debt before it bites us again and next time we may not be lucky enough to escape with just a wound, next time it may be fatal)
Complain about this comment
#324 weejonnie
I would agree with your analysis, and what you want to do within England is your business.
However, I'm puzzled by your wish to move all English public sector jobs from that part of Newcastle which lies north of the old wall line, to those parts south of it.
If the idea is to transfer England north of the wall to us, then you might at least consult the people who live there!
Complain about this comment
#253, writingsonthewall wrote:
"failyopenminded, if I may...
That should lock billions of people into poverty for ever.
--
Why? The moderation of growth would ensure we could allocate the resources of the world better. Instead of an EEC food mountain (created to maintain market prices) we could ensure all the people in the world were fed - we could fix prices so we can make sure those who need it most can pay less."
Sorry, writing... If you "fix prices" you fix them, but if you suggest that prices are variable, so people who need stuff the most pay less, that's not "fixed". It is a directed market, requiring some (no doubt unelected) group to determine what constitutes "need" and how and at what price to meet the need.
The EU (I'm still waiting for a genuine EEC!) food production is more about sustaining an agricultural population than productivity. The CAP was/is the biggest waste of public money I can imagine. IF the EU countries over-produce for their local markets, that allows "surplus" to be re-directed elsewhere. Except that Europe is not the best place to grow some crops. The greatest global need is pure water to support human and agricultural demands. How do you plan to "fix the price"?
"Fixing prices is / would be complicated - but there weren't computers and the internet in 1912. We also have an urgent need to stop the maket dictating prices - because it doesn't account for 'future unknowns' i.e. the amount of oil in the ground, the planets resource limit. The market will continue to underprice oil and other natural resources until someone looks in the tank and it's empty - then panic."
Writing, remember that way back, IBM research determined that the GLOBAL demand for comuters would be 17 (SEVENTEEN), essentially to meet the "needs" in a few countries government agencies.
The "free market" is very imperfect, but every year we have millions of computers sold at prices that keep falling in real-terms. How would you "fix prices" when an industry proves that it can deliver better product at ever cheaper cost?
Primary products are an issue. We know that oil will run out. So some bright sparks will create alternative sources of power supply. When would you "fix" the price? At the point where it is in its infancy (hence more expensive) or have some triple-brained economists determining what a price could be in 15 years time? I don't have a lot of respect for centrally based government economists.
Determining prices is what private companies do all the time. Normally related to real costs and potential market uptake. I respect what I understand of your philosophy, but it seems a long way from the brutal reality that a lot of nations waste resources (including the UK) and some do it as a political means to keep their people subjugated (Zimbabwe springs to mind. A place with great agricultural potential simply blown away to advance a nationalistic theory. Sad.).
Not sure why you refer to 1912 in the context of Russia/USSR. The underlying theory was Marxist (1917 seemed more relevant). The overwhelming delivery was Tsarist - as Orwell pointed out, the stupid folks sitting in the Kremlin directed the peasants to do stupid things and used stupid targets to determine whether there was a good outcome. That was sad.
Any centrally imposed government targets are likely to achieve diddly-squat - or probably some outcome that nobody could have predicted. Hence the rowing back by our present government...
Complain about this comment
313. goldCaesar
Is this a foretaste of the electioneering we can expect in the coming GE?
Squabbling over who's the most gay-friendly. Surely we've moved on?
Pathetic.
Complain about this comment
notfooledsteve 323
How do you propose then to deal with the fact that we are spending more then we are earning as a Country. That is before you get to the crippling debt which is costing us money everyday to service, if cuts are not made. We are not talking about small amounts here. Our debt is at the stage where soon we will not be able to borrow any more because the outside world will have lost confidence in our economy and our currency. Why do you think the OECD, the IMF etc want to see a plan on how wE will reduce our public finances. If anything George Osborne is underplaying the problem to not frighten the public.
As to your other comment 'I am alright Jack' comes to mind. We as young people have to look forward to working until we are 70 and possibly without much of a pension because this Government has destroyed our once wonderful pension schemes. We will be saddled with high taxes, poor services because the money is not there and generations of debt. Do you think it is ok then that the young, some of whom, have not even had the right to vote, should pay for the debt your generation has incurred.
As to your last sentence 'Brown is'.
Complain about this comment
323. At 2:19pm on 03 Jul 2009, notfooledsteve wrote:
...
Unfortunately G.O. doesn't understand the principles of economics merely the political misrepresentaion and the instilling fear of it
...
=====================================================================
I had to cut most of your rambling heresay about George Osbourne. Perhaps when George says something you should wait until he does or doesn't apply it before considering him a liar.
BTW, in your final paragraph (included above) you got one letter wrong - that should be G.B. not G.O.
Complain about this comment
foolesteve @323 wrote:
"Unfortunately G.O. doesn't understand the principles of economics merely the political misrepresentaion and the instilling fear of it, he still has the cheek to accuse GB of lying!"
You could substitute G.O. for G.B.and close by saying that G.B. still has the cheek to go on lying and you would be nearer to the truth.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
327 Whistling_Neil
A good and comprehensive answer but I would disagree on your last para...
I would prefer him to go - he's not the man for the job and I would say there is more damage he can do by staying. Nevertheless - this cannot be democracy at it's best.
Complain about this comment
Looks like some of the home-owning general public are doing what the PM isn't, i.e. paying off debts when in a recession.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8132081.stm
Or should that be a negative rise in their outstanding mortgages?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#323 notfooled steve:
Too many things that I disagree with in your post to quote them, but a few replies:
Yes, until recently we were repaying debt from World War 2, but most people would agree that defeating National Socialism and defending liberal democracy was worth the cost. This Labour Government has borrowed relatively more than the cost of World War 2, and for what? The War of Gordon's Ego perhaps? Or perhaps for a few votes in marginal constituencies.
Yes, you can dilute the cost of debt by repaying it over many years (say until 2035, under Labour's current plans). However, it acts as a drag on spending or investment throughout that time. Furthermore, and following your mortgage analogy, hopefully the house owner has an appreciating asset at the end. We, the UK taxpayer, has nothing because the money has been used on current spending (the equivalent of booze and fags, if you like).
On balance, and weighing sucesses and failures, Thatcher more saved society than destroyed it; hence her reputation as Britain's greatest peacetime PM.
I lour blog name. Unfortunately Labour apologists get fooled again and again (Daltry).
Complain about this comment
331
"Is this a foretaste of the electioneering we can expect in the coming GE?
Squabbling over who's the most gay-friendly. Surely we've moved on?
Pathetic."
=================================
Unfortunately, type of thing is not just electioneering, but the only government approach to anything these days. Verbal abuse and insult., spin and smear is all that the government have to offer now. They are utterly finished.
Complain about this comment
#339. At 3:53pm on 03 Jul 2009, weejonnie
"The Scots should realise"
A little patronising don't you think? Do you imagine that Scots don't look at the arguments in a lot of detail?
I presume you have studied the GERS data
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/06/18101733
What matters is not the mechanics by which taxes from Scotland are collected by the UK (not British) Government, and then sent back, or even the dubious accounting methods of the UK Government by which, for example, the expenditure on the London Olympics to regenerate the East End is charged as a whole UK benefit, and is carried by all of us and not just London. Fat lot of good that's going to be to County Durham!
The critical point is the fiscal deficit of Scotland compared to that of the UK. Strange to say, it has been more or less the same for many years now. Both the UK for itself, and also on behalf of Scotland, has filled the gap by borrowing.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick,
Be careful not to upset this Stasi Government too much by asking awkward questions. You might feel the gag being forceably applied by Police in black uniforms if you continue to question our leader in a way that undermines his integrity.
Complain about this comment
Grandantidote , old chum I referred another who deemed the politics of envy to be a worthy pastime, and who spends much of his/her time on this blog pursuing a "Labour is best and lets sneer at all others" while birlin' like a peerie.
By the way try " have " not "of" - grammatically it's a pet hate of mine.
Along with " invite"used as a noun.
Complain about this comment
328. At 2:32pm on 03 Jul 2009, AlphaPhantom wrote:
"Truth isn't black and white, it always exists in the grey area with varying degrees of shade. Unfortunately, I think Gordon's truth is a far darker shade than most law abiding citizens..."
"...Today, he also declared that current spending would go up by "zero per cent" - And here my mind goes back to the phrase "No time for a novice". I think it would be a minority of the people in this country who would associate growth with 0%"
Oh the irony, you omitted to mention that the 0% growth remark was a slip of the tongue that was hastily corrected to 0.7%.
Now, if your comment had been made with regard to GB's oration skills and his occasional vocal slips, I would have let it go, however the main thrust of your comment was based around truth or lies.
So AlphaPhantom, does your deliberate omission (twice) of the subsequent correction, with the intention to mislead us and reinforce your agenda, fall under the heading of "Truth" or "Lies"?.
Complain about this comment
So, the Commons is gradually watering down the wonderful Brown "sorting out of Parliament".
Why? Because, like so much legislation over the past decade, it was conceived and written in haste and a tiny amount of thinking suggests it's really awful, full of loopholes and a disgrace to the UK system of legislation. Yet again.
Surprised? Nah. The Brown withdrawal of the 10p tax band was so obviously an economic as well as a political disgrace that has still not been resolved.
The stupid withdrawal of tax breaks on corporate payments into pension funds helped to plunge those schemes into chaos. (It wasn't all a government fault. Companies took a pension "holiday" when the stock market boomed. Including the Government, which decided not to put money into the Royal Mail scheme for many, many years...)
Trouble is that, while many UK laws have been drawn up badly, we all seem to accept that whatever comes from Brussels must be good. So there is virtually no challenge, just a load of politicians at central and local levels interpreting things in a far harsher (and more expensive)way than occurs in many EU countries.
Odd thing is that Brown appointed an independent person to draw up new operating rules for the House of Commons, then decided to legislate way before any external assessment had been undertaken. That's just mad.
Complain about this comment
#337 japanbytes
heartily agree this is not democracy at it's best.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
View these comments in RSS