BBC Blog Network

User Profile

bluntjeremy

Listed below are comments made by bluntjeremy between Friday, 12th December 2008 and Tuesday, 24th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Introducing green cuts 6:52pm on 24 Nov 2009 Nick - I find your wholly negative commentary to a Conservative announcement simply biased. Such announcements deserve better quality consideration than you offer, even if you are sceptical. To then put the Labour line:

'Labour points out that in the past 10 years, they have struggled to cut carbon emissions by 10% in central government - so promising to cut it by 10% in one year with no specific plan about how to do it looks pretty implausible.'

without any scrutiny as if Labour always know better than the Tories is again quite simply biased.

Have you actually probed whether Labour have really tried to cut Whitehall emissions? If so, what have they actually done, rather than talked about? What savings, even if small, have been achieved? Have you tried to get some data re what large private businesses have achieved versus Whitehall, so as to provide some genuine comparability?

No. You just took the Labour line at face value and trotted it out as the Gospel Truth.

After all, what is Labour's track record on managing public sector efficiency? Zero.
The real debate has scarcely begun 7:00pm on 10 Nov 2009 Previous Prime Ministers also wrote personal letters to the immediate families of the battle bereaved. Gordon Brown is not therefore doing anything especially sympathetic or outstanding in writing these letters: he has to write them - he'd be totally hammered if he stopped doing so. Imagine what a story that would be!

This therefore comes down to: did he pay due care and attention to a very important part of his job as Prime Minister? Did he take the time and care to make sure a very sensitive job he had to do was properly, sensitively, and professionally done?

No, he didn't.

Repeat: no, he didn't.

Any excuse that he's busy or whatever else is simply not acceptable: he is our Prime Minister and we who vote for him expect to live up to basic standards of common courtesy and professionalism in his public work, duty. If he can't cope with the workload or do his duty, he shouldn't be in the job.

He was sloppy and lazy: in short, disrespectful. In short, a disgrace.

And, Nick, please stop excusing and apologising for the man and trying as no doubt Labour would like you to to move the issue on. The base cynicism of the MOD's leak which isn't a leak earlier today re accelerating helicopter purchases for the conflict has all Labour's hallmarks around news management. Sheer disgust!
The party of the poor 4:10pm on 10 Nov 2009 Nick

This piece exposes your own biases more than anything else. You have believed the propaganda of the Left that only they can ever really care about the poorest in our society. It's total tosh and you should know better: One Nation Conservatism has always been a strong element and force within the Tory party. Call yourself a political correspondant!

The Left believe in patronising the poor, telling them their poverty isn't their fault, it's somebody else's, promising to create an escape route but in reality doing nothing other than marginally increasing benefits. This is what 12+ years of Labour government have delivered: nothing but an enhanced dependency culture where even the hope is beginning to fade. So much for Labour's 'care.'

The Tories believe that the only people who can ultimately help the poor are the poor themselves but society must provide the requisite tools and support. It's about encouraging and empowering people that if they make an effort, they will be met more than halfway; that they can achieve if they try; that success is possible. Call it the X Factor approach. It's about treating the disadvantaged as equals who need some help, not as docile fools where mummy Labour knows best.

Get to grips with your own biases, please.
Cameron the Heathite? 6:12pm on 22 Oct 2009 This blog is bizarre. Couldn't actually believe what I was reading it's so bad.

Nick - you spend far more time dreaming up rather silly jibes around what the Tories might or might not do than critiquing what the Government is actually doing today in running the country.

To talk about the ancient history of what either party tried to do 20+ years ago is irrelevant. Things change enormously, both Labour and Tories. Well, except Labour always ultimately bankrupt the country.

Cameron's point is bang on: Brown is weak, tired, has no ideas, and can't even manage to make coherent arguments any more. He is hopelessly in knots over this issue and trying to play both sides. Yet he's the Prime Minister, responsible and with the power to sort it out! Leadership? Clarity of vision? Integrity to take, stand by and explain a difficult decision? Please!

As for slamming Cameron when he can't do anything one way or the other based on what others did 20+ years ago is just plain weak.

The truth of Cameron's comments obviously hit home at Labour HQ and hurt. Hence this dire attempt at some form of rebuttal. Delivered, natually, by the BBC. Seriously out of touch!
Rising slowly 12:30pm on 14 Oct 2009 I very much hope this is good news. That said, after such steep previous rises in unemployment, some sort of improvement was to be expected by now. Undoubtedly also, government spending has played a role here and this has been a short term benefit.

The question is how sustainable that benefit is: where I am more fearful. You can't keep paying for more and more people on the public payroll whilst the tax revenue base continues to drop off a cliff.

At some point, you either i. have to cut public spending and so jobs in the future, ii. have to raise taxes massively to bring tax revenues into line with the public payroll, or iii. go bankrupt, get bailed out by the IMF and basically lose your independence and be told what to do.

Personally, whoever is elected will face very painful choices here. For my money, BOTH parties will have to cut spending vey hard and raise taxes. The only difference will be in the relative contribution of the two.

Labour will cut spending less and raise taxes more, whilst putting off the day of reckoning as long as possible - thereby also making it worse. The Tories will cut spending harder and try to minimise any tax rises, but will face up to the issue squarely and try to tackle it head-on.

Frankly, Labour should be hoping to lose the election because it's going to be awful, whoever wins. Better to blame the Tories and pretend it wasn't their mistakes.

As for Martin and Smith becoming peers, isn't that just the sort of Old Boys' School, Clubby idiocy that Brown said he would change when the expenses scandal broke? Great to see him following through his high words with such honourable actions later as usual. The man really is a fool if he can't see that we can see through this: and don't like nor trust him as a result.
Has he got a Legg to stand on? 10:47am on 13 Oct 2009 Balancedthought wrote: 'I just think any public figure that stands up and pontificates on an issues needs to be clear that they have not abused the system - something that all the central office comment people have not been able to shrug off although Andy c whatever good attempt at a side step. This is about the morality of stretching the system so that he personally and his family can benefit at the expense of the taxpayer.'

So that'll be the RT Hon. Gordon Brown MP, Prime Minister, then? Having been asked to repay 12+ grand by an independent adjudicator he himself approved sounds like he stretched the system pretty tight to me. What a moral, upright man! Sone of the manse indeed.

Agree with you enitely: let's not have him pontificating any further!!
Has he got a Legg to stand on? 10:30am on 13 Oct 2009 Balancedthought - You are clearly anything but! Cameron has forced quite a few of the Tory grandees to stand down over this issue, so he has taken tough action (and was criticised by quite a few Tories at the time). Despite your bitter comments, his expenses were clearly within the rules, even after Legg's rejigging. Look forward to your similar vitriol towards Jackie Smith who lied about where her primary residence was and was proven to have lied by no less than the police!!

As for having a go at Cameron's background/purported wealth, Tony Blair went to public school and came from a very well to do family, as do Harriet Harman, Tessa Jowell, Hilary Benn, Ed Balls, David and Ed Miliband, Ben Bradshaw . . . need I go on? To simply smear someone because of their background = to admit losing the argument. Not to mention being a hypocrite.

Final point: although expenses are an important issue, I am dismayed at Nick's lack of comment at Labour's conniving to bully the police into arresting Damian Green on false pretences. This is a real issue of principle and goes to the heart of what is acceptable in a democracy. It is what (used to) separate us from dictatorship. But any comment? Of course not.

Bottom line: Nick/this blog is no longer a forum for sensible, measured debate about the critical issues of the day. It's become obsessed with petty stupidities and games. Pathetic when there are so many difficult real issues facing this country.
2008: The Brown rollercoaster 11:31am on 20 Dec 2008 Nick

On the whole an interesting blog: I don't blame Brown for trying to put a positive gloss on our current reality. Any PM is his position would do it.

My only point would be to take issue that the momentum is with him: no doubt the government will continue to announce lots of initiatives, but at some point people will start asking, 'We see all these announcements but can't see any tangible benefits. Things keep getting worse not better. What's going on?'

In my view, the real initiative lies with the recession. Sadly. This will continue to deepen well into next year. Brown will find himself fighting an ever more unwinnable uphill strategy. Expect the May budget to blow his already appalling borrowing figures out of the water, continued sterling weakness leading to imported inflation so reducing the BoE's ability to cut interest rates, potentially a gilt buyers' strike etc etc.

The reality is that this is going to get far, far worse.

And as time goes on, it is also going to become clearer that the government cannot spend its way out of this recession. Having racked up so much debt so early, if the downturn lasts longer than he thinks (and it will - listen to Varley at Barclays), he will have nothing left to offer: worst case is that he'll be forced to raise taxes and drastically cut spending before we're even out of the recession in 2010. People will unfortunately discover the hard way that Brown's made a very bad situation even worse.

If you have too much debt, you cannot defy gravity by borrowing your way out of the problem. You will only make it worse, much worse.

As this becomes clearer, I very much doubt voters will forgive him. So, call me a cynic, but it would make much more sense for him to call an election earlier rather than later.

Finally, thanks for all your blogging this year.

A Merry Christmas and Best Wishes for the New Year to all!!
Intriguing politics 08:10am on 16 Dec 2008 Nick

Contrary to some others, I don't think this is an unreasonable post at all.

More importantly, I think Cameron is right to call for an enquiry and it should go without saying that if there have been white collars crimes committed, those involved must be brought before the law like anyone else.

Speaking on enquiries, why can't we also have a public enquiry into Iraq and Afganistan? Kids - our kids - are being killed day in, day out over there. But does our government believe this merits an enquiry? No. This sort of callous politics by people who've never heard the bullets whipping past makes me sick.

On a final enquiry note: looks like the Green charges are to be dropped. Let's see where the related enquires get us. Heads must role at all levels here. This whole affair was an utter disgrace.
Tensions arise over Zimbabwe crisis 09:25am on 12 Dec 2008 Zimbabwe is a tragic story. When I last visited 10 years ago, it was one of the best run, prosperous countries in Africa. British trained, naturally.

Britain was instrumental in removing the illegal white minority Smith government and holding free and fair democratic elections in which Mugabe was elected back in 1981(?). We should be proud of our role in establishing this black democracy.

The decline began when Mugabe kicked out the white farmers, using blatantly racist propaganda and tactics, because he was worried they were supporting the opposition MDC, as is their right under a democracy. Britain has spoken out time and again against this racism and the wholesale destruction of the economy which has resulted. Despite this, we remain one of Zim's largest aid donors.

But it is no longer our right or role to act: independence means just that. To think otherwise is sheer arrogance. We (and they) can't have it both ways. We have no strategic interest at stake; anything we do would just be seen as colonialist/racist; we don't even have the power to act even if we wanted to.

It's up to those with a strategic interest, ie Zim's neighbours, to act.

Re the issue of refuguees: there are 20+ million Zimbabweans. We can't fit them all into our already crowded little island. Frankly, right now, we can't afford to either.

The best places anyway for the refugees are Zim's neighbouring countries: they are culturally and geographically much better placed to help than we are. We can help more people by providing aid and support locally than we can by accepting a very lucky few.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

bluntjeremy