Thursday, 26 February 2009

Gordon Brown and the suspension of normal politics

I just didn't buy it yesterday, Gordon Brown is not a nice person and he hates "Tory toffs". He may be able to hide it for a week or two but it seems too apparent that he viscerally hates the Conservatives and sees it as his role to keep them out of power for ever. Underneath his expressions of sympathy he and his team will be judging how best to benefit from the situation. Gordon Brown is not above using the death of David Cameron’s child for political advantage, he runs an unpopular government that is presiding over the economic collapse of the Country, he will not shirk from finagling any small political advantage out of this situation that he can.


Anonymous said...


The man lost a child himself, for Christ's sake.

Not a sheep said...

I don't dispute that Gordon Brown lost a child himself, I do dispute how genuine his sympathy towards David Cameron was. Gordon Brown is a political animal and his overwhelming motivation is to keep control of the levers of power and his hatred of "Tory toffs" seems very real.

Apparently Dennis Skinner disgraced himself during the tributes yesterday by talking. It seems to me that Gordon Brown just hid his distaste for the old-Etonian better than his backbench colleague.

Anonymous said...

Irrelevant. Brown may be a political animal but when something like this strikes normal politics is suspended. Despite the heat of opposing views you underestimate what the Commons is like when something like this occurs - it becomes much more familial.

To suggest that Brown is simply positioning when it comes to the death of Ivan Cameron is really unworthy. Seriously.

Not a sheep said...

I am afraid that we will have to agree to differ on this matter. You seem to have more respect for Gordon Brown than I have, indeed more than I would say he is due.

Please don't bandy words such as "irrelevant". That is your view not a fact; it is my view that you are wrong.

Anonymous said...

Firstly, let me say that your comment is to no extent based on fact and is a vitriolic expression of a personally held belief.

Secondly, what exactly is your problem with the Labour government? There is a vast amount of criticism for Labour at the moment, yet quite little evidence is ever produced. Why don't you give some actual facts to back up your assertions? How about WFTCs and other increased benefits for families? How about devolution and the HRA? How about the enormous reforms to childcare policies and help extended to allow not only those of working, but middle class also, to cheaper childcare? Fine, we know, as with all governments, there are going to be some problems. But don't forget Thatcher and her horrific policies which left us slaves to private companies and soaring energy rates, her selling-off almost all of public/council housing leaving us woefully deficient of decent council homes, destroying manufacturing industry and making britain heavily reliant on the tertiary industry and stopping the construction of public works, having an enormously detrimental impact on construction and architectural firms. Let alone the mass repossessions, the mass unemployment (over 3 million) and the loss of hope that we experienced under Tory government. You may feel negatively about the Labour government, but by this time in the Tory's government, things were much, much worse.

Not a sheep said...

Sam, you can say what you like; you're wrong but you can say it.

Your second point is quite funny "what exactly is your problem with the Labour government? There is a vast amount of criticism for Labour at the moment, yet quite little evidence is ever produced."...

Go learn some history, some economics and some politics and then come back and comment. You clearly know very little about what state the UK was in in 1979, the causes of the 1980s recession or indeed much of what happened in the early 1990s. Your use of the phrase "don't forget Thatcher and her horrific policies which left us slaves to private companies" lets me know exactly where you stand and it is on the wrong side of the argument.

History will show once again that a Labour government has screwed the economy up and that a Conservative government will have to (if it is even possible this time) put things right again. As usual the Conservative government will take the blame for the necessary cuts and no doubt you and your friends will protest and scream your hatred for the new Thatcher, and you will be as wrong in 2011 as your forerunners were in 1983.

The only way Gordon Brown's government will not preside over 3 million unemployed is if they call an early election; in any case the real unemployment figure is way way higher than 3 million - somehow I doubt that you have complained about Gordon Brown's massaging of the unemployment statistics over the past 10 years.

As for repossessions, give it time and the monthly totals will peak above those experienced under Thatcher and Major.

If you want facts, look around you, read the Economist, the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal and you will see the economic facts that you crave. For facts on the most repressive regime in the UK in modern times I suggest you read any newspaper on any day and you will find many examples of the type of policies that if "Thatch" had tried to implement you would have been screaming your protests on the streets. Just because the governing party is Labour, don't think they are anything other than the real "nasty party".

Anonymous said...

I like the way you clearly think I vote labour - I don't as a matter of fact. I don't think they are a perfect alternative to the Tories, I simply think the Tory party are evil. I'm pointing out to you, that though with BOTH governments economic recessions have occurred, Labour have at least done SOME things that could be considered good - such as constitutional reform; the Freedom of Information Act, Devolution, HRA etc. I also point out (if you can read) the work Labour have undertaken to lessen the rich/poor divide, which under Thatcher, became astronomical. I also highlight the progressive taxation policies undertaken by Labour and family friendly schemes such as Tax Credits. Thatcher liked regressive taxation, such as the Poll Tax, which hit families on lower incomes particularly badly. The Tories are not interested in helping others out of poverty or prioritising the needs of the less well-off. I want a government with a social conscience, you want a government who lines the pockets of the rich. So before you get on your high-horse about your precious economics, bear in mind that your party (who's economic track record isn't that hot) are socially and morally bankrupt and will have to change their approach to society and humanity before I ever cast a ballot for them.

Like I said, it's not that I vote Labour, I simply hate the Tories and don't want them 'fixing' anything, thank you very much.

Perhaps your problem is that you're reading too many papers and not enough books. With a memory as faded as yours, a couple of books (I might recommend Blair's Britain if you'd like an overview - it's not an overly sympathetic account) might help you remember more facts, rather than relying simply on what the hostile daily papers are telling you.

Not a sheep said...

I have no idea who you vote for, I mentioned Labour because you asked "what exactly is your problem with the Labour government? There is a vast amount of criticism for Labour at the moment, yet quite little evidence is ever produced."

You criticised me as my comment was apparently "to no extent based on fact and is a vitriolic expression of a personally held belief." And then you go on to say in your most recent comment that: "I simply think the Tory party are evil." And yet you still think I should take your views seriously?

Let's take a look at the list of Labour achievements that you manage to scrape together:
1. Constitutional Reform - What should Labour be most proud of here? Having more Labour appointed peers than ever before? For failing to end the role of hereditary peers as promised? For allegedly accepting money for peerages? Maybe you are proud of John Prescott's Regional Assemblies - that went well as the voters said NO, but Labour went ahead anyway.

2. Freedom of Information Act - Are you serious? A great idea, I was in favour, but have you not noticed how the Labour government have managed to give themselves exemptions from the Act whenever they can? FOI but not from government.

3. Devolution - Maybe you think Labour should be proud of the way they tried to use Constitutional reform to ensure a permanent Labour majority in Scotland - and then failed in that.

4. Human Rights Act - Are you proud of the way the HRA is used to allow terrorists, terrorist supporters and assorted low-lifes to stay in the UK and claim compensation, the Afghan hijackers' are just one example. Are you proud of the way we get landed with some of the world's more unpleasant people because it would breach their human rights to send them back to the country they came here from?

I was going to reject your whole comment for the ridiculous remark "if you can read" but I have decided that it must have been a mistake for which you would certainly want to apologise; am I right?

You say that Labour can be proud of "the work Labour have undertaken to lessen the rich/poor divide"; I presume you know the gap between rich and poor has widened under this Labour government.

For a non-Labour supporter you seem rather proud of the introduction of the Tax Credits
system. I presume you appreciate bureaucratic inefficient systems, because that's what Gordon Brown's pet system is. Do you think that over a £billion a year in waste is a good thing in this system?

You highlight Labour's progressive tax system; are you sure? It seems rather regressive to me, maybe you should read up on this subject (like many others) before passing comment.

The rest of your email is symptomatic of so much that is wrong with the education system in this Country. "it's not that I vote Labour, I simply hate the Tories"
You "hate", you don't think. You think people are "evil", you don't analyse.

You criticise me for reading too many papers and not enough books. I am interested in this assertion, how do you know what I read? Maybe you should widen your reading away from your current sources of opinions and towards fact. I can recommend "The Little Red Book of New Labour Sleaze" to enlighten you as to the way your Labour government has operated. "The Bumper Book of Government Waste: The scandal of the squandered billions from Lord Irvine's wallpaper to EU saunas" to show you how Labour have wasted our money, you could also watch the Dispatches programme from last night. Still on waste you could read David Craig's "Squandered". Larry Elliott's "Fantasy Island" would give you an insight into the lies and statistical legerdemain that define this Labour government. You could also dip into "Yo, Blair!: Tony Blair's Disastrous Premiership" for lots on the lies that took us into war against Iraq and much, much more. You could read "Wasting Police Time: The Crazy World of the War on Crime" to see how this Labour government have overwhelmed our Police with bureaucracy.

Maybe you could read those few books before commenting here again. I have read them all over the last few years and many many many more books.
I do like your remark that I am relying simply on what the hostile daily papers are telling me; I don't take a daily paper any more - maybe you think the periodicals I mentioned (Economist, Financial Times and Wall Street Journal) are just daily papers - I read the Economist some weeks (not as often as I would like) it is a bit corporatist but the figures are reliable. I read the FT and WSJ online and although the FT is hideously pro-EU and up until recently somewhat pro-Labour their figure reporting is excellent as is the WSJ.

Now I must return to my real job of work. I do so look forward to your considered reply...