BBC Blog Network

User Profile

egrid1

Listed below are comments made by egrid1 between Wednesday, 2nd September 2009 and Thursday, 12th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

It won't be March 09:06am on 12 Nov 2009 It seems that now Kelly has drawn the curtains on Labours £10,000 PA communications propaganda allowance they are seeking other ways to put their messages in front of the public without challenge by the opposition.

Funny how this has been suggested for years, yet it is only a few months before an election where Labour decide to implement it.

These will become nothing more than weekly Party Political broadcasts on behalf of the Labour party. Whilst the PM spokesman is supposed to be non political, that will not be the case with a televised briefing by a party member.

All funded by the taxpayer of course. In the same way that Sarah Browns promotion is funded by the taxpayer, with her blog under the Number10 masthead, and photo ops regularly organised by the Government then promoted on the Number10 site.

Labour have felt that the traditional advantages of office were not enough, and have slowly found ways to increase them.

I note that Gordon Brown was quick to congratulate the Afghanistan Prime Minister on his election Victory (recognised by everyone to have been corrupt) - was he trying to normalise election fraud too?
Why them and not us? 5:31pm on 23 Oct 2009 I keep hearing Darling on TV telling us that he said two years ago that this would be a long recession and that he did not expect a return to growth until the turn of the year.

That is not strictly true.

In the Pre Budget Report, November 2008 Darling said:

"I, too, am forecasting that output will continue to fall in the UK, for the first two quarters of next year.

But then, because of decisions taken in this Pre-Budget Report, I expect it to start to recover."

That was then pushed back in the budget in April 2009:

"But because of our underlying strength, the measures we are taking, domestically and internationally, I expect to see growth resume towards the end of the year."

He now talks of the turn of the year for a return to growth...

Our underlying strength was clearly not as well founded as that of most other major economies.
Should Darling back Lloyds' rights issue? 10:21am on 08 Oct 2009 Who will buy the shares that Lloyds wants to offer?

Can the buyers be sure of what they are buying? They effectively are buying a company saddled with an unknown quantity of bad debt. It is taking the Treasury months to work out what the risks would be so as to price the insurance scheme, yet, if LLoyds go the share route, shareholders will be taking the place of the Treasury, by taking on that risk themselves.

Would it be right for pension funds and institutional investors to be investing in this type of share offering?

It seems to me that the banks got into a problem because they were buying high risk loans, where they did not fully appreciate the risks involved - will institutional investors follow their lead?
Brown and markets 2:14pm on 30 Sep 2009 "So it is by no means a trivial political event that Gordon Brown should make an explicit attack on what he called a "bankrupt ideology" that "markets always self-correct but never self-destruct"."

Typically Brown has put up a straw man that he felt he could easily knock down.

In reality there has never been a perfect "invisible hand" in the markets, they have always been subject to some regulation, which was accepted by the ideology of the "Free Market".

The problem was that Brown bought into it too much - he thought that light touch regulation could be taken further than it ever had been.

He was blinded by the profits that seemed to be generated by the Financial Institutions, and wanted nothing in their way that could reduce their competitiveness - lest his tax pounds that rolled from their profits should slow down.

When he speaks of greedy bankers and their bonuses, do not forget that he is speaking in hindsight and he didn't mutter a word whilst he as Chancellor was taking 40%+ of those bonuses, as well as Corporation tax on what was left with the companies.

He claimed that the Tory Ideology had failed - he is wrong. It was New Labours ideology that failed, and now it has we do not have to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Imposing proper regulation, as existed in the past, will be sufficient.
Brown will take part in debates 09:58am on 30 Sep 2009 "So it is now clear. He's going to do it. We just have to wait to see when he'll get round to telling us"

Nick, I am afraid you are wrong.

Brown has now taken to lying to himself!

He thinks he will do it (he has made the decision in his own mind), but he won't tell anyone otherwise plans could start to be made. Then he will not be able to back out at the last moment saying nobody could agree on a format.

He knows that he plans to do that too, but is convincing himself he won't.

He should read a book on Courage.
Will he or won't he? 10:33am on 29 Sep 2009 Browns idea of starting debates now is clearly a tactical move.

It allows him to draw out the Conservative policies that they want to keep tight to their chest until the election. Labour are desperate to know the policies in advance, they will then devote the full resources of government to analyse them. Of course it will be done under the guise of considering the policies for implementation. The taxpayer funded research would then be selectively used to ridicule them.

It also allows a chance to double dip for Labour.

If the debates go disastrously wrong for Labour, they can still ditch their leader before the election, and bring in a new one. As is on the cards anyway.

The Conservatives should agree to a series of debates, but starting once the election has been declared. With a typical campaign lasting 4 weeks, it allows the opportunity for several debates (as Gordon suggests), whilst keeping the Conservatives policies away from Labour taxpayer funded propaganda.
No ordinary week for the PM 11:21am on 26 Sep 2009 "The irony is that once the "snub story" emerged Gordon Brown was rewarded with the bilateral he'd craved and pictures to die for as the President repeatedly clapped him on the back and tightly held the hand of his wife Sarah. Thus, the special relationship was, once again, put back on track."

Yes, Obama did the same when Brown was in America before didn't he. It's a game that Obama plays well, and Brown falls for every time...

Make him grovel for a meeting, make it look as though he has been snubbed, then at the last moment give him a titbit.

It keeps him in his place, but keeps him on side.

As for Brown being "furious with what he regards as the media's childish games",

Browns willingness to play the part in those games (and the part is a fool), is demonstrated by your next sentences...

"But it's not as simple as that. Downing Street were "desperate" - to quote the former Foreign Office Minister Mark Malloch Brown - for a Gordon and Obama moment . The White House had other more important things on their minds and in the president's diary."

It is a pity that Gordon Brown is so weak that the important things for him are simply to be seen rubbing shoulders with Obama.
The baroness and the illegal immigrant 12:27pm on 22 Sep 2009 Keith Vaz has just been telling the BBC how grateful he is that this matter has been dealt with quickly, he feared it would drag on for weeks for it to be fully investigated.

He claims it was investigated without fear or favour - would anybody facing similar claims have a resolution so quickly, or was this in fact favour?

The fact is this has been rushed through and a decision rushed out just as Brown leaves the country...

Mr McCavity again.
No-one can rewrite political history 10:35am on 14 Sep 2009 Over the weekend Alan Johnson claimed the Tories had called the biggest decision of the Century wrong - that of using spending to get through the recession.

Did Brown therefore call the the other side of the equation (and an equally large decision) wrong - how the deficit caused by the spending should be reduced?

It suggests that Brown made the easy decision to keep spending with no idea how to deal with the additional consequences the policy was sure to cause.

Any recession can be delayed by increases in Government spending, when you are happy to put the burden of debt on future Governments to avoid your own Government having to deal with it - and that is what this Government has done - they have delayed the pain, not eliminated it. They clearly had no idea as to how they would deal with the pain when it would inevitably return, which is why Brown hammered on about Tory cuts. Their prime focus was on delaying it until after the election.

Even now they are petrified to remove their foot from the accelerator, because that is when the second dip is most likely to come, so the accelerator remains flat to the floor, and borrowing continues to rise.

We still have the VAT to increase to pre cut levels, Stamp Duty to be reimposed, for the car scrappage scheme to end, for interest rates to rise to realistic levels and for Government spending to be cut and tax to increase to pay off some of the debt that this Government has accumulated.

Only then can Labours attempts to pull the country out of recession truly be judged as being successful or otherwise. At this point they will be seen for what they have actually done - delay the pain, not remove it.

Brown, as Chancellor, claimed to have abolished Boom and Bust. Instead through over spending, he gave us perhaps 8 years of boom, we now face 20 of bust.
What the PM did and did not say 4:56pm on 02 Sep 2009 A very carefully crafted speech that was read...

On our part there was no conspiracy, no cover up.... no private assurances by me to Colonel Gadaffi...

Why was there a change of emphasis during that list of what had not apparently happened, from the wider and more collective "our part", to the very narrow "no private assurances from me to Colonel Gadaffi".

Does this not leave open the prospect that others gave private assurances to Gadaffi, either prior to Browns Prime Ministership (we know the documents relating to Blairs discussions are not to be revealed), or by other members of Browns government?

«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

egrid1