Close of conference

Kelly is leaving the door open for a return in a few years without the stigma of having stuck the knife in.

A very politically aware decision on her part. Get out when it's bad but don't burn your bridges.

And she's jumping before she's pushed by the electorate.

A deal's been done for sure, we just won't know what it is for a while.

Harriet Harman saying that something isn't quite right with David Cameron? Bit ironic.

Well, a nicely stage-managed conference - as all parties do - which makes out that UK is alive and well.

Re EDF, I may be wrong here but does Gordon Brown's brother not work for EDF in a senior capacity?

Even more Nick Robinson hypothesis or is the truth, as always with Gordon Brown, simply being denied or suppressed??
Expect one or two "spoilers" in mid Tory conference, but don't for heavens sake be suckered in by them. The Machiavellian manner in which El Gordo operates is becoming clearer by the day. Can we please have a General Election urgently so the electorate can rid the country of this criminal, amnesiac, control freak for good.

A long way to go... No too late

A long wait for an election... Yes.

Hes a "towering figure".

Wonder if thats a Euphemism?

Who cares how Labour spin it anymore? We know there is spin and discount it. New Labour was born out of spin in the first place.

The cabinet know Brown has no ideas and no money to spend with the economy broken.

Spending will be 40% above predictions this year. 40%, normally there are howls when it is one or two percent wrong.

Brown is a busted flush and the country needs a new direction and a better leader.

"There is still for him, and his party, a long way to go."
You're not kidding!
Highly personalised attacks on Cameron...Harperson saying "something not right about him"...calling press conferences at 3am to announce the resignation of cabinet ministers...twisting Osborne's quotes and lying about it....highly selective interpretations of Labour's economic record etc...etc.
It's a very very long road to any form of Labour recovery, say a decade of Conservative government!

Labour have done everything but throw the kitchen sink at this, if the polls don't move then it's curtains for Brown. The clock is ticking until Nov 6th in Glenrothes and the next crisis.

Nick - Do you agree with Diane Abbott that the cabinet will move against Brown if Glenrothes is lost?

"...Gordon Brown has taken the first step - of many needed - for a political recovery..."

The only valid measure of this will be electoral and the only national test on the horizon will be the European Parliament election of 2009. Will Labour improve on second in 2004? https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/vote2004/euro_uk/html/front.stm

Nick, Any comment about Harriet Harperson's ad hominem attacks on Cameron?

(Yes - I know that I am guilty of many ad hominem attacks myself, but I don't present myself as a smug, sanctimonious Nanny of the Nation).

Nick,

the question now is 'Where is Brown going to turn up next week' in an attempt to upstage the Tory conference?
With any luck he'll be so deluded by his apparent success this week he'll call an election.

Sure Brown is on the up. There's not much further down. However attention now turns to young Mr Cameron, whose silence on what has been billed as the worst financial crisis since the 1930's has been deafening.

Cameron is now playing from a poor hand. The villains of the moment - and for the forseeable future - are the Men in Red Braces. NuLabour has only had a brief flirtation with these characters and politically can start to distance themselves from the wreckage. The Conservatives, however, have been in bed with them for generations. Can young David now plausibly come out with plans to haul in the servants of Mammon? Not a hope - ideologically he's got way too far to travel and his handlers wouldn't let him anyway.

So, does he stick with a party doctrine of non-intervention and minimal government. If so, which bank will be the first to fail under a Cameron government?
Does he plan to match Labour's spending plans and if so how does he raise the money? Party doctrine says less direct taxes, not more. So will it be more VAT? Or will it be more borrowing (thus pushing interest rates up even further) or more PFI? Or does he let the whole thing wind down? Sure, there are quangos to kill off and economies to be made but I doubt it will solve a crisis of this scale.

The curse for Cameron is that so long as he stuck to ID cards, reform of the more vexatious parts of our Human Rights legislation and a referendum on the EU treaty he sounded bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. Once the economy comes centre-stage he's stuffed.

Brown's not out of the woods by any stretch but at the moment he's the only one coming up with ideas, good or bad. If Cameron comes up with alternatives they will be critically examined. If he does less he will be condemend as a rich-kid frontman who may have less of the night about him than Michael Howard but who has far fewer ideas.

Where is Davis when you need him??

The BBC quotes Harriet Harman as saying (about David Cameron):

"He's the kind of man your mother used to warn you about," she said. "He'll promise you the world. But if he ever got his wicked way with you - in the ballot box - you'd never hear from him again."

Hmmmm.... language that only 'wimmin' are aloud to use. If I were to say, for instance, that the reason Harman looks so annoying is that "she got her wicked way - in the ballot box [yeah, yeah] - only with Labour supporters" would it be censored?

So let's take a closer look at the Brown boom and his potential 'recovery'...

Recovery from what?

Unde Brown's last five years as chancellor at the peak of the boom, real income in the UK grew at an average 1.4%

During the five years to 1990, under Thatcher, real income grew at 4% per annum.

Even after the top of the Thatcher years, under the first five years of Major, rela income grew at 2.1%

So Brown has presided over one of the most pedestrian periods of growth in income in three decades.

Raising taxes - the Brown deafult mecahnism - will slow this growth further and delay the repayment of the debt bubble he has built up.

Is it any wonder ministers and members of the government are walking out one by one.?

They have realised what a fake and a flake this man really is.

Easy credit, splashing the cash on pet causes and monstrous waste.

Call an election.

After 10 years of Tony's appalling delivery record, Gordon had the opportunity to start afresh by appearing to lay 10 years 'blame' at Blair's feet.

Gordon had an excellent first 12 weeks as PM and then it all came crashing down.

Now the media and public in general have finally caught up with the fact that Gordon is a major part of Labour's failure in government over since 1997..

Gordon missed the window of opportunity to pull the wool over the public's eyes during the short window that was the election that never was. He fluffed it.

So although Gordon is hugely responsible for lack of delivery under Labour - since becoming PM he has since also been seen as responsible for these things as well:

- Knifing Tony Blair in the back

- Coming into power with no plan or vision

- Disastrous leadership once the 12 week honeymoon period ended

- Trashing the nations finances (the public now know this is an 11 year tragedy)

- Lurching to the left to try and prop up support in the Labour party



It was way too late for Gordon to turn things around several months ago.

We are just witnessing the death throws of Labour at the moment - this ain't signs of recovery......

"2. At 3:46pm on 24 Sep 2008, Neil_Small147 wrote:

Re EDF, I may be wrong here but does Gordon Brown's brother not work for EDF in a senior capacity?"




No, you aren’t. He holds a senior position in their PR department. How lucky is that!


Is Gordon on the road to recovery? To misquote the song,


“And no matter what the spin is
Or what may yet be said
The simple facts of life are such
They cannot be removed
You must remember this
A speech is just a speech, a lie is still a lie,
The fundamental truths apply
As time goes by “


As long as Gordon Brown is still Prime Minister, Labour should not win the next election. Sadly CM Dave C is still an unconvincing alternative.

Get ready for the lowest national turnout in history, and our next Prime Minister, ‘None of the Above.’

Expect "Baroness" Kelly of Bolton to pick up some plum quango jobs prior to being made a life peer when Gordon goes and she gets booted out at the next election.

Cynical? Moi?

In response to Fooottapper (#11):

I'll have a large whatever you're on. For the pas 11 years Gordy has been sucking up to the wide red braces brigade. How else do you think he got a lot of the PFI stuff done, which, by the way, still doesn't appear in the nations books, where it belongs.

Everything that is currently bedevilling the world's financial markets has taken place during Gordy's watch, either as Chancellor or as PM, and he won't be able to hide from that.

That's a good line from Harriet Harman about David Cameron. If she came up with that herself, I'm impressed.

Not a big fan of Cameron myself but Harman's scrape the barrel comments......

Which is the nasty part now?

Robin @ 13

Is all that from the WS Journal, Robin? ... you know, like you were telling us about earlier?

Nick,

#12

are labour trying to ingratiate themselves with young illiterate people. First we have had Alastair Darling with 'pissed off'. Then we had Jack Straw with 'mother and father' MC5 'kick out the jam', if you must know, and now Hadrian Hardman with 'in the ballot box' which is another euphamism for a certain part of the family anatomy.

Trouble with these labour ministers, they are not just inept, they are dirty too, filthy minds.

10

i doubt we'll be that lucky - labour do arrogantly think theyre the right people, but they are clever enough to know they'll lose - they believe allowing the public to have what they want would be bad for them, and so will cling on til 2010 - labour *are* the government after all, hell labour *are* the public in half of their heads

The conference closes and Gordon Brown stakes the retention of his leadership on his claim to be the best person to see the country through the current world economic turmoil.

He argues that the world has changed, that the financial community is now different and that problems in one country can affect another. That better regulation is required to prevent this happening again.

However history is repeating itself, and Gordon Brown is repeating himself too.

In 1998 the world suffered from the Asian crisis. At the time Gordon Brown, as UK Chancellor, was also President of the G7 group of Finance Ministers. What did Gordon Brown say at the time?

The BBC reported at the time:

As president of the G7 finance ministers, Gordon Brown was instrumental in negotiating the package of measures that has now been agreed by central bankers and finance ministers from the USA, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and Canada

"We will not let high-risk hedge fund speculation by the few translate into a wider risk for the many and destabilise the financial system on which we all depend for prosperity," Gordon Brown said.

The Chancellor emphasised that problems in the banking systems of foreign countries could have serious "contagion" effects that could threaten banks in the UK.

A BBC Video report of the decisions, which includes the then Chancellor Gordon Brown setting out his proposals.

HM Treasury issued a press release. (179/98)

Significant reforms to strengthen the international financial system were announced today by Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown in the UK's role as Presidency of the G7 leading industrial nations.

As G7 President, Gordon Brown has led this process of negotiation, following agreement at the IMF meetings in Washington earlier this month to develop quickly proposals for reform.

Gordon Brown states:
“…the financial crisis that swept Asia last year and has reverberated around the world has served to expose long-standing weaknesses in the international financial architecture and, because by its nature the crisis is international, so too must be the policies to address it.”

“The old way has too often been crisis management in national economies where purely national regulation does not even reach minimum standards. The new way forward for today's global economy, where each economy can affect every economy, is sensible global financial regulation, credible crisis prevention, orderly mechanisms for crisis resolution, with a sure foundation in minimum standards and best practice which all adopt to participate in the international financial system.


So today we announce details of a mechanism for crisis prevention; a new process for global financial regulation; and new proposals for transparency and crisis resolution that each G7 country will now adopt and apply.”


Hansard, for 2 November 1998 quotes Gordon Brown as saying…

“Our predecessors had to meet the challenge of ensuring economic stability in an era of national economies. Our generation must meet the challenges of ensuring stability in the era of a global economy, in which each economy can directly affect the prospects of every other.”

“For 50 years, our policies for regulation, supervision, transparency and stability have been devised and developed for a world of relatively sheltered national economies with limited capital markets. Now that markets transcend national boundaries, we must create for global markets systems for supervision, transparency, regulation and stability that are as sophisticated as the markets with which they have to cope.

“G7 Governments have therefore concluded that the international architecture devised in the 1940s for the economies of the 1940s is no longer adequate for the challenges of the 1990s, and that we need new rules for the global financial system. In the statement, each G7 country has now agreed to adopt and apply codes of conduct founded on minimum standards and best practice.”

“In the G7 statement, we also commit ourselves to strengthening the regulatory focus on risk management systems and prudential standards in financial sector institutions, and, in particular, to examining the implications of the operations of leveraged international financial organisations, including hedge funds.”

“A fundamental problem has been a lack of transparency and poor standards of disclosure by some financial market participants.”

“We will not allow high-risk hedge fund speculation by a few to translate into wider risks for the many, and destabilise the financial system on which we all depend for prosperity.”

“The G7 countries have also agreed on the need for a better long-term mechanism for international authorities to work with the private sector and national authorities in handling debt rescheduling at times of potential crisis.”

“Globalisation has happened. We must now make it work in hard times as well as good. As we have shown, we need not new institutions, but new rules and disciplines. I want to thank other G7 Ministers and central bank governors, and Heads of Government who have backed this work all along, for working through this new agreement.”


It is clear that as President of the G7, Gordon Brown was instrumental in negotiating the world regulatory regime that has now failed. The risks were well recognised, more than 10 years ago. But the measures taken, negotiated by Gordon Brown as President of the G7 were inadequate.

Yet he claims he is the best person to resolve the current crises.

He uses the same language now, as he did 10 years ago… He talks of new global markets, transcending national boundaries, just as he did 10 years ago. He even set out 10 years ago what he had to do “Our generation must meet the challenges of ensuring stability in the era of a global economy”.

The current crisis is not a crisis caused by a new global economy, it is a crisis caused by a failure to meet challenges identified over 10 years ago. Throughout that time Gordon Brown was best placed to meet the challenge – he failed. Having failed over those 10 years he is clearly not the person to resolve the crisis now.

#10

I would guess the plane to Iraq has already been chartered

There can be no political recovery for Labour without ditching some of their distastrous policies.

Brown talks about a fairer Britain, but actually he's only talking about Scotland.

English people are not anti-Scotland, but this Government does seem to be anti-England. How can it be right for Scottish MPs in Westminster to decide Laws for England, when MPs (Scottish and English!) no longer make decisions for Scotland?

It's a total mess!

Scotland is a great place, but the population is tiny compared to England. Under this Scottish dominated Labour government, Scotland has certainly prospered!

Brown has no right to talk about a fairer Britain!

11 fingertapper

Brown's not out of the woods by any stretch but at the moment he's the only one coming up with ideas,

---

and yet Vince Cable is much hailed for his wise words of warning on the economy, and his formation of a new lib dem economic plan - i've even heard tories say he has good ideas while whinging about cameron and osbourne - and yet will they vote for anyone but the tories? - no, even if clegg was cable, kennedy or ashdown most people would stick to labour or the tories and never look anywhere else

Indeed not a Geoffery Howe moment, could have been what with her being an old Blairite stalwart.

Instead this could play to Gordon's benefit. She was gushing about him, he got to be all smiley on stage again, AND he now has perfect excuse for a nice healthy reshuffle.

It is said one should never reshuffle unless one has to, now he has to.

So, what do we reckon?
Who's (back) in and who's out?
Answers on a postcard.

I think Nick Robinson must have been affected by the "aura" surrounding the conference,
Brown has done nothing of the sort, there is no vision, just deceit and dissembling. You only have to watch the Sky interview with Adam Boulton to see that GB was like a rat caught in a trap.

https://blogs.news.sky.com/boultonandco/Post:297250e8-990a-4a07-a5c7-6e6d9a1b796c

Play the video.

Its not the beginning of the end, its not the end of the beginning, its very close to the end of the end.

Harriet Harman - there's something not "quite right" about her.

"She's the kind of woman your mother used to warn you about," she said. "She'll promise you the world. But if she ever got her wicked way with you - in the ballot box - you'd never hear from her again."

so if I said that, it wouldn't be sexist at all harriet? i'm probably just a misogynist trying to smear you

Hariette harman is a very nasty piece of work - a devisive man hater who unapoligetically only represents wimin.

She is as suited to political office as bernard manning or alf garnet would be.

The person who warns you off evil people like her are not your parents, they are priests...

PS Kelly got the same kind of garbage that appears in posts 7, 9 + 12.

Take your sexism somewhere else.

The frequent use of 'Harperson' instead of Harman, because she is a feminist or because she didn't change her name when she married Dromey, is offensive.

Women with a minds of their own, whatever next? They'll be wanting equal pay!

#2

Correct, Andrew Brown was appointed as EDF Energy's Head of Press on 13 September 2004. Nepotism? Surely not?!?!

Nick, why is it left to Private Eye and various websites to tell us this information? Why do you and your colleagues not mention this extremely important fact?

There must be all sorts of shady dealings going on due to all the various directorships and consultancy posts held by MPs, as well as obvious links such as the above. Why does the BBC not highlight them? This would be proper investigative journalism. There doesn't even need to be any attempt to accuse the Government of dirty tricks - just present the facts and the public will draw their own conclusions.

You only have to watch the Sky interview with Adam Boulton to see that GB was like a rat caught in a trap.

https://blogs.news.sky.com/boultonandco/Post:297250e8-990a-4a07-a5c7-6e6d9a1b796c

Agree totally megapoliticajunkie . Why does Brown ALWAYS get an easy ride on the BBC? As for Kelly's 3am announcement about 'spending more time with her family'... Rats and sinking ships more like. They must think we were born yesterday.

As a member of Opus Dei and a good Catholic she must be telling the truth about wanting to spend time with her family, otherwise she would be committing a sin.

This whole situation is incredible. It is entirely undemocratic. The Labour party should call an election immediately. That is what the country wants.

Brown is a nobody failure - sadly he is also ruling a people that do not feel that he hasn't any right to lead them.

What sort of signal does it send out to other nations we waggle our self-righteous fingers at, telling them they are undemocratic?

Election please, now.

Nick,

can I give you all an extract from a mail being sent out by Ron Paul, who is a senior American politician and libertarian. He is drawing support for masses of people in America to phone their congressman declaring that they should, no must, vote against the bail out:-

'Times like these have a way of telling us what kind of a people we are, and what kind of country we shall be'.

In liberty,

Now, I don't think that this save the banks and speculators will get through Congress. The Americans do not want to saddle their children and grandchildren to all this debt. They compare this bail out to what would happen in communist China, this is not going to happen.

What Cameron has to say on the economy is simple.

He will attack Gordon Brown for almost doubling National debt. He'll repeat the message about 'Failing to mend the roof'. He'll make some quip about borrowing enough money to not only mend the roof but build a two-story extension and an indoor pool. Then he'll say that somewhere between borrowing the money and getting a quote from the builders he got distracted by 'The Blazing Saddles Girly Ranch' and metaphorically blew the lot on hookers and Wild Turkey because for sure he didn't spend it on the roof.

Then Cameron will have a good laugh out loud cameo on the sheer gall of a man who will lecture bankers on their SVI approach to hiding their true liabilities. This? This? This coming from a man who routinely hides over one hundred billion of liabilities from the national debt? The Tories will be rolling in the aisles.

Then having warmed up the audience he'll produce the 1997 manifesto and there'll be tears of laughter rolling down the delegates faces as he reminds them of 'no more housing boom and bust'. And then, when they're all about to soil themselves with laughter he'll remind them that this is the man who after eleven years considers himself no longer a novice. This is as good as he's going to get.

Gordon Brown is going to get destroyed. Of course Gordon will have a massive 'spoiler' planned for the day. I think Cameron should wrong-foot Gordon by bringing his speech forward a day with zero notice.

Cameron doesn't have to say a thing about how he would 'fix' the economy. His goal is to drive home who wrecked it.

Gordon Brown wrecked it. All by himself.

Nick,

Ruth Kelly should be listened to, she stressed that all her children were 'born' whilst labour are in government. This should be understood with regard to the abortion debate, I don't think that many in the government support the Human Embryo Bill, Ruth can now possibly vote against, rather than go missing. I think that many others will also vote against especially if they are no longer ministers.

This should have been a completely free vote.

I think that Hadrian Hardman and her sisters are up to their necks on this.

#20 sagamix: It's all IN the WSJ, but crucially not BY the WSJ. It's an opinion piece by a well-known very right-winger, who writes reports for think-tanks set up by Thatcher and Joseph and then by himself, and who took over Cameron's job as Lamont's side-kick.

A flavour of his views can be gleaned from two quotes of his:

"The problem the Conservative Party has is that it's spouting baloney."

"Tories who want the party to move closer to the centre of being "Vichy" style collaborators with the Labour government. "


Somewhat to the left of many posters on here, I admit.

#23 egrid1

Get all that Jimbrant, derekbarker, sagamix, CEH, dhw, grandantidote and the other Labour apologists, over to you lads.

#32

Did you not notice Gordons mention of the ending of the energy dictatorship of oil, and then the mention of nuclear power, and clean coal, and the labour delegates applauded. Are these people mad or what?

Yes, as Gordon said 'we will win for the sake of our country' only I worry about which country is actually Gordons country. Why did he even mention the BNP, who is labour more afraid of, the conservatives, or BNP.

What did he mean by the dictatorship of oil, this from a paternalistic despot, who has never been elected as Prime Minister, not by anybody. If he was elected show me the voting papers, tell me who actually voted for our Gordon, come on anybody, tell me how he was 'elected'.

hy does Brown ALWAYS get an easy ride on the BBC?

David Kelly. Andrew Gilligan. The BBC had this mendacious cabal bang to rights but fumbled the ball on a technicality and wallop. Standard Nu Labour policy. Discredit the source. Destroy the evidence. Bury the facts.

They're totally eviscerated.

They're now all too frightened to give Labour the mauling they deserve so they're doing the next best thing which is to go relatively easy on Cameron.

33 henry hedgefund

it's more a case of sky being notoriously anti-labour, they are basically the torygraph in tv form

If coming out fighting is saying there is something wrong with DC and the like its not much of a fight is it. It is noticable that all the other parties are being very quiet but there is not much incentive, better to leave Labour in the spotlight, there isnt much need for a riposte is there.

Re 10,

I have started a book on your very question.

The odds for an election being called is 100/1, nice for an outside bet.

Guest speaker at the Tory conference, 50/1.

New(ish) re-shuffle (Wednesday), 25/1.

Cracking jokes on GMTV, 10/1.

Stating hs side of the story on Jerry Kyle, 5/1 (With tears 4/1).

And finally, my sure winning bet, spending billions of our money on the black whole in his finances, evens.

Oh dear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Brown's central claim yesterday was that he was an experienced pair of hands for the major economic problems we are facing

You won't believe this then.....:


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/3074014/US-Treasury-Secretary-Hank-Paulson-rejected-Gordon-Brown-meeting.html


Looks like Brown has as much effect on resolving this situation as a 'Novice'

#35. doctorbreezy

RUBBISH!
Since when was an unpopular prime minister and a cabinet minister resigning "to spend more time with her family" undemocratic!?

If that was enough to demand an election we would have had one in 1981, 1986, 1990, 1993, 2000, and 2007.
Demanding an election before an elected government's term has expired is unconstitutional and (conceivably) undemocratic!

Get all that Jimbrant, derekbarker, sagamix, CEH, dhw, grandantidote and the other Labour apologists, over to you lads.

I assumed they were all the same person. You mean there's more than one?

How does Labour afford them all? I thought they were bankrupt. Rowling's money can't pay for them all can it?

Whatever Ruth Kelly has done or not done, she musn't punish herself - oh, what am I thinking - she already does!!

#41 TAG "...who has never been elected as Prime Minister..." We don't elect Prime Minister's in this country, we elected governments. How the party of government choses their leader is their own business. They can have an egg-and-spoon race for all I care, because we have 'collective responsibility'. You need to brush up on your constitutional knowledge, [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

#45. tobytrip

I'll have a tenner on:
New(ish) re-shuffle (Wednesday), 25/1
and
Cracking jokes on GMTV, 10/1.

44. glanafon:

"...better to leave Labour in the spotlight, there isn't much need for a riposte is there?"

Oppositions don't win elections governments lose them. Gunpowder is best kept dry.

Wiltshire County Council A Conservative Nanny State!

#48. U9461192

Ha bleedin' Ha

:P

#49. StephenU

HeHe. Naughty! :)

46. At 6:34pm on 24 Sep 2008, jonathan_cook @46,

Why would a can-do Republican Treasury Secretary want to meet a soon-to-be-disposed, Obama-supporting looser?

47. dylunydd

Nothing to do with gender, everything to do with public will, failure and discontent. Brown could call an election now but he knows he would be humiliated. Kelly has jumped off the Titanic in what is a wise move (though I don't personally rate her anyway).

This government has created its own downfall, it is just a shame that it will take the nation with it.

It is time for reduced egos and straight talking.

Pulling 'sexism' cards is pathetic.

StephenU @49,

LOL - You've been reading too many trash novels.... I think, however, that Brown has invented a Methodist version of the 'silice': biting one's nails to the quick.

StephenU @49,

Hee hee - You've been reading too many trash novels.... I think, however, that Brown has invented a Methodist version of the 'silice': biting one's nails to the quick.

56 Maxsceptic

That bit of news is the final nail in Gordon's coffin of a claim to be the right man to solve the problems with the economy.

15. At 4:43pm on 24 Sep 2008, Constable_Shoe wrote:
"2. At 3:46pm on 24 Sep 2008, Neil_Small147 wrote:

Re EDF, I may be wrong here but does Gordon Brown's brother not work for EDF in a senior capacity?"




No, you aren?t. He holds a senior position in their PR department. How lucky is that!


Knowing the way Labour enjoy spin - and Alistair Campbell - Gordon probably thinks he runs the company.

#45

Guest speaker....at the tory conference....


" THE LEHMAN BROTHERS"

followed by roland.......
followed by Tim but dim.........tory boy.....

laugh....laugh....laugh.....laugh

Why don't you let people vote, then you can see.

Re 52, royalgrounded

LOL, expected, how much gunpowder Guy Fawkes.

Prob is dont want genocide, landslide to DC and co not good simply because too big a majority not good, governments run rampant when that happens, look at early NuLab. Also don't want to see nutty fringe rise, situation could be unstable. The centre ground won't stay vacant as NuLab lurch left.

I've got it, let them all resign for family reasons and they could probably be excused.

I doubt Ruth Kelly well be missed, lets face it
just like the others who resigned in the past, what is odd, very odd is the way it was done shortly after 3 am now that ain't normal...

... and besides the roads here still had potholes that HGV makes a bee line for in the early hours. making one hell of a racket.

The blue touch paper has been lit and theres a by election round the corner, wiffle waffle about leadership challenge is nothing, to gain public support they need to turn things round 'now' and they can forget all the showmanship and rhetoric - and it isn't gonna happen in double quick time they have finished preaching to the flock (thank gawd).

This guy's the right man for the job, gee he's had 11 years at it and look at the sate he's in - do please, bring on the novice...

and besides he was a novice once, a novice that inherited a healthy pension, money in the kitty and a swag of gold - where is it now?

#42 U9461192: "The BBC had this mendacious cabal bang to rights but fumbled the ball on a technicality "

Yes, the truth is a wearisome technicality is it not? Still, given time and sufficient repetition of unsubstantiated conspiracy theory as fact, history can always be revised, rewritten, and reversed.

#48 U9461192

It never occurred to me the "prosaic" grandantidote, cryptic derekbarker and the flowery CEH could be one and the same person, surely not.

Sagamix, give the lad/lady credit, does articulate his contributions very well in fairness though.

I'd have the devil of a job assuming those different personas - I guess desperate political parties revert to desperate means.

I reckon dear old JK Rowling stumped up the cash in exchange for being able to write her latest work of fantasy fiction, Gordon Brown's conference speech!!

#42 U9461192 : "The BBC had this mendacious cabal bang to rights but fumbled the ball on a technicality "

Yes, the truth is a wearisome technicality at times is it not? Still, given time and sufficient repetition of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories history can always be revisited, revised, and rewritten. Especially if the reporter has conveniently lost his notes and wiped his recorder.

47 dylunydd wrote:

RUBBISH!
Since when was an unpopular prime minister and a cabinet minister resigning "to spend more time with her family" undemocratic!?

If that was enough to demand an election we would have had one in 1981, 1986, 1990, 1993, 2000, and 2007.
Demanding an election before an elected government's term has expired is unconstitutional and (conceivably) undemocratic!

---

apart from the elected government pledged that their leader would serve a full 'term' - that leader left over a year ago, the public have been misled on a fundamental point of their manifesto and have every right to ask for a GE

oh and when does a term 'expire'? we don't have fixed terms in our country, only that it may not be longer than five years - both of Blair's full terms were four years

46. jonathan_cook

Fantastic,

Poor old Gordon its just one nail after another.







Doomed Dooommmed Doooooommmmmmed

#67 - Ilicipolero

"I reckon dear old JK Rowling stumped up the cash in exchange for . . . "

Baroness Rowling?

#31

I think, dylunydd, that you should be offended at Harriet Harman's appalling sexism. What right does she have to stir up misandry in what is a thoroughly nasty piece of defamation of character? The insinuation of her comments about David Cameron are actually very serious indeed (if you can see what sort of person she is comparing Cameron with), and I think that she owes him a public apology. If that does not happen, then she ought to be prosecuted, in my opinion. This is not freedom of speech, or legitimate political debate, but mean-spirited slander. Any man making a similar comment about a woman would be (quite rightly) reviled.

"He's the kind of man your mother used to warn you about ... if he ever got his wicked way with you...". The mind boggles at the perverted ideas which must have been coursing through her mind as she tried to find some way of trying (and failing) to win a seedy point against the leader of the opposition. And funny thing is, I thought Labour's problem with the Tories was to do with policy! Apparently not. So can we assume that now Labour have resorted to sexist attacks and perverted defamation of character, that they have lost the policy battle?

Ms Harman seems to be incapable of using evidence to support her prejudicial assertions. For those of us who have the ability to think logically, we can see that it is impossible for her to support her claim about David Cameron, since it is based on a scenario that has not yet occurred - i.e. his winning a general election. It's like a kind of a version of "Minority Report" - condemning someone before they have even done anything wrong! Is this the depths our government has fallen to?

If any Labour party activist happens to read this, then let me tell you that, as a former Labour voter, there is nothing your party can do to make me want to support you again. You will lose the next election, and deservedly so, so get used to the idea. Everything you do and say is just one extra nail in your coffin as far as I am concerned.

Spending more time with the family is the best reason I can think of for postponing retirement indefinitely.

#68 Jimbrant

Did Andrew Gilligan, rather than mis-place his notes and delete his recordings, not add to them and studiously avoid revealing the source of his information? And did not the name of the late Dr David Kelly only become public with Blair and Campbell under pressure? The passing of Dr Kelly has much more to do with the axis of Blair/Campbell than the journalistic integrity of Gilligan.

73. threnodio

Didnt Tessa Jowell take that view, she left her family to spend more time with the government.

When - prior to 1997 - Blair didn't really specify any policies but just waited for the demise of the Tory Government ,everyone accepted that situation with more or less equanimity.
Then with the accession we had the start of the ' Blair Rich Project' - ably abetting his wife with Human Rights legislation . He became paranoid and employed spin to doctor what was really happening . He mislead the country over Iraq , ignoring the wishes of over 2 million people who protested , and at the same time had a lead part in the tragic events of Dr. Kelly and the subsequent emasculation and muzzling of the BBC . The pronouncements by his press officers were quite rightly treated with contempt - they were just spin . Having made his money ( nice house - nice job with a bank) he quit - knowing the writing was on the wall .
Now we have Dave boy - he says nothing , propounds no policies and just waits - like a vulture - till the body is cold . Then he and his Chancellor in waiting George ( oh no not a repeat ) will step in - with what ?. Deja vu or what ?. Don't let the Blair fiasco happen again - ask him what he intends to do ....

Gordon "International Statesman" Brown.........


So in recent weeks GB has achieved the following:

1. Ridiculed by Senator McCain

2. Snubbed by Hank Paulson

and now.....

Following the Labour conference speech, clips of Obama - a spokesman has issued a statement saying that Mr Obama was not endorsing the Prime Minister.



Charles-E-Hardwidge - this isn't the sign of a major strategic mind. Brown is limping from one international blunder to the next don't you think?

The Americans get women politicians who can track and shoot moose.

We English get women politicians who look and sound like moose.

Oink, oink!

Ok, now I've got the sexist piggery out of the way, here is the serious bit for the one (my mum) who can be bothered to read further.

Our resident journalistic 'pointy-head' Dan Finklestein of the Times, saves us political amateurs a lot of hard thinking/learning curve time by explaining today that it is not the 'economy, stupid' this time around, that has 'pissed off' the people with the NL Government.

Finkelstein predicted in a paper a decade ago that ultimately, the electorate would get totally disillusioned with NL as they saw for themselves that the money extracted from their wages packets did not generate an equivalent improvement in public services.

I concurred with Finklesteins analysis because I clearly remember the Blair/Brown combo trumpeting about the money that they were going to put into public services back in 1997 and dully thinking 'yeah, hundreds of millions of pounds destined to go down the plug-hole'.

Which of course, is precisely what has happened, plus the long-term debts Blair/Brown have run up on things like PFI.

The people have twigged and the NL Government are now dead men/women walking.

What a pity Hazel BLEARS didn't resign.

She epitomizes what is wrong with the Labour Party - total ignorance

#74 Ilicipolero: As I said earlier, repeat the conspiracy theories often enough and some people will start to believe them. Have you read the Hutton evidence? - Oh!, I forgot, that didn't come up with the 'right' answer, so it was a whitewash, so you can safely ignore everything that was said. Of course.

68 Jimbrant

New Labour's media machine was vicious.

Can I suggest you read an extract from Adam Boulton's forthcoming book "Tony's Ten Years: Memories of the Blair Administration"

When you read the following extract - put yourself in the Kelly families shoes - :

https://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/22/alistaircampbell.media


So the government were proved 'not guilty' - as it were - by Lord Hutton.

Having read this extract - do you think that the government / Campbell are likely to be entirely 'morally' in the right over the Kelly / Gilligan affair?

Yes, the attack on Cameron was disgusting wasn't it?

I mean, it's not like that Conservative's would ever launch personal attacks is it?

Oh, wait! What's that?

Gideon "George" Osborne is the master of it.

Talking about his ability to recall obscure facts, a journalist jokily asked if he was "faintly autistic". To which the witty Gideon replied "We're not getting onto Gordon Brown yet" (BBC, 6th October)

"It's very difficult to have any kind of personal relationship with him...he has psychological flaws...he's just pretty unpleasant and brutal" - more observations than the delightful Gideon in an interview with the FT 2nd December 2005.

Gideon's best pal is also at it too.

"That strange man in Downing Street" - David Cameron, 23rd January 2008, interview with the Times

Conservative HQ also released a pamphlet stuffed full of very personal attacks on the PM on 21st June 2008 "Gordon Brown Annual Report". Required reading for anyone who wants to learn whether the Tories are still the "nasty party" that Teresa May admitted they were a few years ago.

6 main chapters - "Brown the Failure", "Brown the Incompetent", "Brown the Ditherer", "Brown the Opportunist", "Brown the Hypocrite" and "Jonah Brown". It could have been written by the most unhinged contributors to this website.

Highlights include claiming that it was Brown's fault that England lost the first game at New Wembley, it was Brown's fault that England lost the rugby union world cup final against South Africa, it was Brown's fault that Scotland lost a world cup qualifier at home to Italy, it was Brown's fault that Arsenal didn't win the Premier League last season and that it was Brown's fault that Rangers lost the UEFA cup final against St Petersberg.

Their picture gallery is also quite amusing, mocking Brown for being photographed looking like his hair is on fire from the Olympic Torch, and claiming that "he's been targeted by aliens from the planet orange". While in the same pamphlet crying about Labour's 'Tory Toff' Crewe by-election tactic without apparently appreciating the irony of this.

I could go on and on.

And that's without even going into their long track-record of nastiness (e.g. 'Demon Eyes' Tony in 1997, criticism of single mothers, 3 million unemployed and the decimation of British industry as a price worth paying for low inflation, skilled people out of work due to said Conservative policies are just lazy etc).

Yes, how dare Harriet Harman make such an attack on Cameron. You're quite right aren't you?

I'll agree with one of of Crash Gordon's points...........yes his pretend Government si full of novices..............

Darling..........is he really a iron Chancellor who can give us confidence? No, he's just a quivering pip squeak when interviewed on the telly!

Miliband. Foreign Secretary??? He isn't in the league of Douglas Hurd or Robin Cook. He's just a university schoolboy who's never had a job in his life and has no chance of ever becoming PM. Crash should sack him!

Gruesome Kelly? What has she ever done for anyone? Total non-entity. Good riddance.

Purnell? Pointless man!

The list of duff Cabinet Ministers goes on and on!

Only Jack Straw is decent and even he can be a bit two faced!

So next week Crash Gordon should sack the entire Cabinet, then himself and then

CALL AN ELECTION!!!!!!!!!!

the problem with the prime minister's speech was directed only to the conference, that means he was really aware of the craks within his party, so the british people have to wait till next year to hear Gordon brown policies to sort out the economic mess the country in.

72. logica_sine_vanitate wrote:


I think, dylunydd, that you should be offended at Harriet Harman's appalling sexism.

Without writing a long condemnation of Harman because I think you have succeeded very well, I should like to add just one sentence.
Her treatment of men, and scorn of the role of husbands, is the reason Fathers For Justice regularly demonstrate against her.

When the next election does finally take place, I'm guessing a Tory government, with LibDems in second. NLab will reform, refresh, come back as NNLab, the party of change, and with the Tories unable in the first year to rebalance the housing markets, the banking systems etc cos it will take more than a few years, we will hear that the Tories are failing the country... and on and on we go... The following 4 years after the election will be the best time ever for the LibDems to move into 2nd place on a more consistent basis/ticket, but at the end of 4/5 years we'll be back to stalemate all over again... In the meantime, we have to just look after each other as best we can (isn't it all we ever do?) and see that real life doesn't exist in politics, but outside of it, above it in fact... wkae up to the real world....

#23 well put argument - even more of an eye opener, look up the "early 90s crash" and when lamont bought us out of the ERM - check out who said he was wrong to do that and was the only MP to want us to stay in it, despite the pound dropping through the floor and manufacturing industry being destroyed before our very eyes.... *cough* gordon *cough*

as for ruth kelly, i dont understand how you can be part of the cabinet that brings in a law that is opposite from your own personal view?

if i was in that position i wouldnt stay on for 6 months and bite my tongue, id be gone and away before you could say "alistair campbell reappears"

and how crass of brown and co to leak a cabinet reshuffle, do they have no scruples at all?
ruth kelly's taking 6 months to leave the government will surely result in her being given a peerage, and as for the response from her fellow labour MPs... pure spin.

ive watched 5 interviews on various channels and radio today, with different labour MPs and each one has used the term "tittle tattle" and "we had no idea"

theyve just spent 4 days sat next to the woman - amazing since glasgow east - alistair campbell keeps popping up and more than normal, things keep getting leaked...

It's high time that Labour - movement, party, government, ideology, the lot - were consigned to the dustbin of history.

82 balhamu

can some of us simply be disgusted at Harman's comments? not everybody is a tory and frankly i don't care if it was against cameron, clegg or the queen's pet corgi - in my book two wrongs don't make a right

I haven't been following the debate over the last couple of days. As I said before I had to switch off during Gordon Brown's speech yesterday after my stomach involutarily emptied itself.

However, I echo the thoughts of #72 logica_sine_vanitate. Well said (or written) my boy!!

There is also a big gap between the truth and the speculative reporting which you indulge in.I would suggest in future get the facts right before going into print

Jimbrant

Following the Dr Kelly debate above:


A little bit more on the New Labour 'media machine'................

Are you watching Newsnight tonight? They are running a story on civil war between Labours more vicious media briefing operations.

..........ironic really. Labour lived by Spin and may well die by Spin.

It would be poetic if Labour's own media briefing operations finally knifed the party to death.

Some research on "fixing the roof when the sun was shining" using the HMT Public Finances Databank.

Let's have a look at how the last Government fixed the roof (admittedly the sun didn't shine much, but that was largely a result of their economic policies designed to destroy manufacturing industry and turf people out of work)

Current Budget surplus 1979-1997: MINUS (yes, that's minus, as in negative, additional borrowing) £315.6 billion (2007/08 prices). An average current deficit (i.e. not paying for investment) of £16.6 billion.

Compare and contrast with this profligate Government, who's current surplus 1997-2008 is PLUS (yes, plus, as in a surplus) £2.8 billion. An average surplus of £0.3 billion per year.

The Conservatives were increasing the debt by £16.9 billion per year to pay for their current spending. That's what 'saving for a rainy day' means.

Let's try public sector net debt. First, let's try Mr U's definition - absolute debt (at 2007/08 prices).

Public sector net debt was £88.6 billion in 1978/79. By 1996/97, it stood at £348 billion. Yes, that's right. Conservatives saved for a rainy day by increasing the national debt fourfold.

Makes the Labour performance of only increasing debt by 50% almost prudent doesn't it? (£348 billion 96/97 to £529 billion 07/08, or £640 billion - 84% - taking Mr U's unreasonable assumptions on PFI as the truth)

I'll be more reasonable, and use an income basis (I know Mr U will disagree with me, but I'm only trying to help him prove his point).

Debt was 47.1% GDP in 1978/79, it decreased to 43.3% GDP in 1996/97. By 2007/08, Labour had increased it to 36.9% GDP. Or, hold on a minute. 36.9% is lower than 43.3% isn't it? Surely that's wrong? That's a decrease of 6.4% GDP. A bigger decrease in debt as % GDP in 11 years than the Conservatives managed in 19 years.

And that's even without thinking about the fact the coffers were boosted by £100 billion 1979-1997 from privatisation public corporations (at a discount to their friends in the City).

That's without thinking about the fact the coffers were boosted by the revenue from the mass sell-off of council houses in Right to Buy. 2.2 million homes sold at a discount of 50%. Can't find an estimate, but even assuming they were sold for £30,000 each (07/08 prices) that's another £66 billion boost to the state.

That's without thinking about the £135 billion proceeds of North Sea Oil, which was gushing in the early 80s (revenues were over 1% of GDP through 1979-1986 and reached almost 3% of GDP during this period).

Where did this £300 billion of selling off our assets and the benefits of the black gold under the North Sea go? Quite a lot of sun, £300 billion+ of additional one-off revenue. Surely the Conservatives would emerge looking rather tanned.

And what happened to investment? New school buildings - no. New hospitals - no. Better public services - no. Where did it go? Paying off the debt - no.

Into the pockets of the rich, to pay for the negative employment, sickness and social impacts of poverty-causing economic policy, that's where.

So, if this is what fixing the roof looks like, what Labour have done since 1997 is equivalent to building a whole new city.

What the Conservatives are currently claiming about 'Labour should have fixed the roof while the sun was shining' is completely ridiculous. They did. And they had no stash of gold under the cellar. They did not have the benefit of selling of the family silver. Yet they still managed to build a whole city, rather than deliberately putting holes into the roof as the 1979-1997, to borrow Gideon's metaphor.

#80 Jimbrant

My previous offering at #74 is not incorrect, I stand by this and refute your argument.
Please forget urgently conspiracy theories, the facts are quite clear in my honest opinion. An decent family took his own life after people unknown made his name public.
My point, and I will defend it, is that between them Blair/Campbell have previous form, form that has continued with Blairs successor.
----
Is there any any heartfelt criticism of Blair, Brown and Labour in general, you will not vehemently defend, however spuriously?
----
At this point in time, my voting intentions are unclear, what is perfectly clear to me is that Gordon Brown and the majority of his cabinet colleagues affect adversely the lives of both me and my family in a completely avoidable fashion. Gordon Brown is duplicitous, untrustworthy, ineffective, disingenuous and not to be relied upon. His weasel words are simply the actions of a man determined at all costs to prolong his stay in power, a role he coveted for many years and is determined not to relinquish.
His determination to become Prime Minister is matched only by his reluctance to cede power. The only difference is, before assuming office his actions were covert and not visible, now he has achieved his long held ambition, his inadequacy is glaringly obvious. Take for example his conference speech, how many years too late again? on the back foot? reacting to circumstances rather than preventing them? transparent policy announcements? (to go with the lamentable energy announcements which were found wanting one day later).
I could go on, but I can visualise already the three lines you'll use to respond.
Gordon Brown is a pathological liar and will go down in history as one of the most woeful Prime Ministers ever to have held office.

72 and 90

Although Harman's comments are clearly ridiculous - the most damning thing that can be said about them are that they are "witless".

Labour just having nothing constructive to say about the future direction of this country. Harman certainly doesn't.

Miliband has passed the banana-baton in the Labour relay race to political embarrassment and oblivion onto Harriet.

93:

Good arguments. But how, exactly, do you explain away adding about 800,000 useless pen-pushers to the public sector payroll?

Just watching the Daily Politics - so many Labour MP's have such low expectations of what they could and should have achieved over the last 11 years.

#81 jonathan_cook: "Having read this extract - do you think that the government / Campbell are likely to be entirely 'morally' in the right over the Kelly / Gilligan affair?"

In any complex affair going on in real time, I doubt whether it is ever possible to be certain that any one individual involved was entirely in the right, morally or otherwise. However, I read the evidence to Hutton each day as it was published, and before he gave his judgement I had formed the view that there was practically no evidence whatever to support the lurid conspiracy theories that were doing the rounds. Of course, the press had formed their collective view before the Hutton evidence ever came out.

Before I retired I was the Personnel Director in a large organisation that employed a lot of people 'like' Kelly - indeed including him. Once the evidence had been completed I wrote to the MoD Personnel Director, who was being vilified in the press, to say how impressed I had been with how Kelly had been 'handled' - much better than I thought we would have done in the same circumstances, with the press pack ('the feral media', to quote somebody who had to put up with them as well) in pursuit of their story. Blair and Campbell were hardly involved - at a crucial point they had to decide whether to tell the truth or to lie if a reporter came up with Kelly's name, and in my view they did the right thing by deciding to confirm the truth. If they had not, one can imagine the shock/horror (real or imagined) of the media at the government cover-up.

I am not particularly influenced by Boulton's piece, though it is only an extract and there may be more in his book. I have read Cameron's diary extracts (not an easy read!), and I recognise some events seen from the 'other'side. Certainly Campbell gradually came to the view that most of the journalists he was dealing with (including Nick, Marr, and Boulton) were usually only interested in pursuing their own 'line' and not the truth, and were always looking for the sensational. I guess that like most situations, the 'truth' is somewhere in the middle.

But it is quite clear from the evidence that Gilligan was in this case incompetent, and probably not very honest. He was unprofessional in the extreme in giving away Susan Watts' source (who was also Kelly, though her version was nothing like as sensational). In the end, I think there are only two options: either Kelly embroidered his story when talking to Gilligan, and then lied to cover his tracks (the Walter Mitty possibility that the other Kelly was crucifed for mentioning); or that Gilligan sexed up what he was being told. Unfortunately we wll probably never know which is the right version, but there is circumstantial evidence on Kelly's side, and it is at least suspicious that the only hard evidence was held by Gilligan and he lost it. In any event, what enraged the government was that Gilligan accused them of deliberately twisting the intelligence, and of knowingly lying, not just getting the judgement wrong ; neither charge stands up, on the basis of the evidence we have.

So in respect of Kelly, I am reasonably satisfied that the government were neither morally nor in any other sense responsible for the tragic consequences. I am also reasonably satisfied, on the basis of the Hutton evidence, that Kelly thought the 'dossier' was generally (though not totally) an accurate representation of the intelligence, and that the action against Iraq was necessary and desirable.

Daily Politics.............

Alan Johnson (I think) - on TV and proud that they have lowered MRSA death rates!

Then having having a go at the Conservatives because they haven't congratulated Labour for this MRSA reduction achievement - double laugh!!!


.........I wonder - could the reason for Labour's 'MRSA improvement' possibly be that less people are dying of MRSA because more people are dying from the more virulent and deadly Cdiff and don't get a chance to catch MRSA in the first place?


New Labour. New Cash. New Taxes. New Data. No effect.

#94 Ilicipolero: "Is there any any heartfelt criticism of Blair, Brown and Labour in general, you will not vehemently defend, however spuriously?"

Yes, there is. However, my posts on here are usually in response to what I consider to be unfair and unsubstantiated criticisms, made with little reference to the evidence - as is usually the case with the Kelly/Iraq affair, where the criticism comes from the left as well as the right. I don't much care how heartfelt the criticisms are - if I think they fly in the face of reason and the evidence I will say so.

Since you ask, as an example I disagree violently with both Blair and Brown about faith schools. I don't think that taxpayers' money should be used to allow people to brainwash our children. I also am not much enamoured of Brown as PM, and I have said so several times on here.

Now turn your question around and tell me whether there is anything you would give that trio any credit for?