The spirit of Churchill

Oh Great , this means we will have to suffer more of Gordons smug face on the tv

Bit of a stretch to compare Brown to Churchill, Chamberlain would be a better comparisson!

What should worry Downing Street is how sad Gordon Brown will appear when standing up against Obama.

Obama may be a novice but 'Oh boy' does he have presence.

Let's hope for Gordon's sake he does not appear to be looked down on.

Difficult for him to try to tell Obama what he should be doing. He already knows.

He can even tell him a thing or two.

Is this what we pay the licence fee for? Watching BBC 24 hours news 1/2 hour ago, a presenter spoke to a lady reporter in New York about Brown's visit. The point is that a BBC team is already there and operating.

I am lead to believe that the T.V. System in the U.S.A, is different to ours and any U.K. team would need special equipment to transfer their system to ours. An expert in this field will be delighted to correct this, if it is incorrect.

What is wrong with Justin Webb, America's correspondent for the BBC? If nothing. why do we need two, or more?

I'm sure that Obama will see him for what he really is - his time has been and gone.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The links between the UK and US are that ingrained it will be almost impossible to separate.

From education to military and intelligence, we are inexorably linked.

That is why Gordon is the first from Europe. Obama knows that the UK-US alliance is the strongest in the world.

So is Crash going for the 21st Century's equivalent of the "Lend Lease" policy?

I thought Crash said he'd paid that back, is a sort of elastic banking facility?

If, as he says, the problem started over there, why would we want to stand "shoulder to shoulder"?

Just ask the question about Harriet, Nick. Then maybe we keep the topic on internal matters because the campaign to take Fred's pension would have serious repercussions amongst those large American banking institutions

Oh, shame on Brown. Grovelling, sniveling.

Trouble is, Brown has no credibility on his own. He wants to work in integrity with Obama.

Both are into "globalisation" in a big way, was it not what they were brainwashed into in university?

Brown is no Churchill. He stands outside the shop with his nosed pressed up against the window wondering if he can buy those red shoes.

Regarding the bust of Churchill - sent back to where ?

Perhaps Brown can ask Obama to send in the marines to sort out Sir Fred Goodwin. Might be more effective than Hardman threatening to override the law courts!

The spirit of Churchill!

You must have an unique perspective of early WWII history, Nick. Churchill pleaded in vain for the US to enter the war, but the Democrat Roosevelt aided and abetted by Joseph Kennedy US Ambassador in London, rebuffed all attempts. The only concession was to provide 50 clapped out destroyers as a monstrously expensive loan in the form of gold and new UK inventions where copyright was ceded to the US. Some of the ships were so unseaworthy that they never crossed the Atlantic (one almost sank when it left port in the US!). We finished paying off the loans 20 years ago.

Only Pearl Harbour saved the day. But at the end game of the war in Yalta, Roosevelt (then quite ill) was more interested in creating the UN, Churchill wanted a free Poland (the reason that UK declared war against Germany) and Stalin cared not a jot for either. After Yalta, Roosevelt renegotiated the oil market in the Persian Gulf (prevously the preserve of the British) in favour of American interests.

And to cap it all US Foreign policy was geared to American expansionism to the cost of Britain having an empire.

So your analogy, Nick could not be more inapt. The alliance of Roosevelt and Churchill was born of desperation, certainly not of respect and by all accounts quite rocky. Obama's views of Colonialism does not bode well for the aspirations of the Foreign and commonwealth Office and whoever resides at 10 Downing Street.

Meanwhile, back in the real world us mortals have to live in, the market is tanking in response to HSBC et al and Sterling is on the sliding again.

When he flies back, can we expect another "crisis, what crisis?" line - ?

The spirit of Churchill?

Since when has Gordon Brown ever shown the spirit of Churchill?

Oh, he'll be there to share the glory all right, but when the going gets rough, he takes a large step back to let one of his other minions take the flak. Winston must be turning in his grave at the mere thought of any association with a man who couldn't even manage a till at Tesco's, let alone the economy.

The spirit of Churchill? Not even close.

Nick,

At their Joint Press Conference, please can you ask President Obama if he agrees with Gordon Brown's analysis that the Global downturn started in America and was Washington's fault.

A simple question. And one that is bound to make the news. Furthermore, aren't journalists supposed to ask tough questions - so how about it Nick?

Remember Brown's be saying it's America's fault for eighteen months - now we could find out if our PM has the courage to say it to their faces...

Mr Robinson,

Already had an opportunity to ask the PM about the subletting of his constituency office? Quite a strange error to make after so many years as an MP.

And how about the court of public opinion ordering Brown to hand the pennies to the tax payer? (Must admit I borrowed this one cheekily from another post somewhere that the court of public opion deems that Smith should hand her expenses back!)

By the way, don't forget that Obama is also embarking on the wrong economic policy. US consumers hardly saved when the cotton was high, but still a bit more than UK consumers who did not save a single penny on average in 2005/6 (all the US's fault obviously). The increase in savings and drop in consumption that is necessary regardless of the bank problems will result in such a sharp drop in consumption that no government will be able to offset it with a stimulus, nor should a government compound the errors of its citizens. Obama hasn't been brave enough yet to tell this one to the US public. Just wait for the next Gingrich revolution following house of reps elections.

I know I've already posted these cartoons on another blog but the top one of these by Gerald Scarfe so perfectly sums up Brown's desperate attempt to gain kudos by rubbing shoulders with the new President:

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/cartoon/

I don't think I can bare to watch Brown fawning all over Obama and then all his cronies queing up to fawn all over Brown fawning all over Obama....

Sorry slightly off topic but what a laugh to hear Harriet Harman say about Goodwins pension

"It might be enforceable in a court of law this contract, but it's not enforceable in the court of public opinion"

Ok then.... that'll be the same court of public opinion that thinks Jackie Smith should not get £116,000 for her second home. Oh the hypocrisy of it all......

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Hi Nick

Not sure what to think of this blog actually. Quite frankly, the fact that GB is the 'first' Euro leader to meet Obama is irrelevant. He'd create much more of a stir if he didn't meet him at all.

I fail to see why our PM goes snivelling and grovelling to St.Barak when he's consistently laid the failures in the global and UK economy at the door of the USA (the famous line uttered a hundred times 'this all started in America" blablabla nonsense). No wonder Obama has hinted he doesn't like the man. It's plain he thinks he's a snake (even if Obama is still in the naive infancy of his political career) and unfortunately not alot GB can do about that now, especially with the weekend we just had regarding the Goodwin fiasco when it became clear the Govt KNEW what was going on...

It's probably jolly good for GB that the news over there in the US is so heavily censored so they never hear the bad things other countries say about them. (Trust me, I spent a month there in Decemeber and it was all censored in comparison to UK news stories). That said, Barak is astute, has presence and quite frankly will simply out-shine GB in appearance alone so it will simply look silly when he's there.

Sometimes I do have to wonder whether Gordy is actually working hard to ensure that Labour aren't elected at the next election.

Nim :)

Strictly pickled @10

Its now in the British Embassy in Washington

Gordo's meeting is a waste of time. Obama is no fool and will see McDoom as the busted flush that he is.

I fully expect to see another "downfall "video on this subject shortly.

The sooner this nation is rid of "Dr No more boom and bust" the better " whatever happened to "prudence"??? Another £325 billion chucked away through Brown's failure to regulate.

Nick -- please change this blog name.

It is an insult to Winston Churchill to even think of Brown and Churchill in the same sentence.

Please moderate your own blog -- PLEASE !

Nick heres a funny one to ask brown...

His ministers are saying the HSBC has avoided the worst problems because it is an international bank... This of course suggests the governments previous like - that this is a 'global' problem, with us being best placed is - has been quietly sidelined...

Make sure it doesn't stay quiet Nick...

ps. I am afraid I have no interest in your series on PM's -- your lack of decent analysis of the current PM is hardly a recommendation for the rest...

If anyone expects a sycophantic BBC reporter to ask hard questions of the PM, you too must be deluded.

This is spin city folks!

Believe what you are told by the Ministry of Truth or face the consequences.

Could'nt you just weep?
Or sharpen pitchforks, as my favourite now sadly vanished, blogger suggested.

ONLY ON NICK'S BLOG:

Live from Washington:

The delegations meet in a clasp of handshakes.

Obama to Brown: Hello! Nice to see you

Brown to Obama (clutching Obama's hand with all his might and not letting go): Novice!

Obama (aside) to aide: Who is this guy?

Aide to Obama (whispers): He's Gordo Broon, the British Prime Minister, Mr President

Obama to aide: Oh yeah... the one who's going to lose the next election, right?

Aide to Obama: Yes sir, Mr President.

Obama to Brown: Welcome to America, Mr Broon.

Brown (ranting): America! America! It's all America's fault! And I'm very angry!

Obama (pulling his hand free) to aide: Jeeez... ugh! I've seen on uTube where those stubby fingers have been! Get this guy outta here as quickly as possible...

Aide: Yessir, Mr President!

Obama in relief turns to greet someone else.

Brown is lead away muttering: I'm not psychologically flawed... I'm not...

Perhaps The Court of Pubic Opinion should try this.

How about MP's working a full week?

How about MP's having the normal 6 weeks annual leave?

How about MP's having a salary, and a capped expenses account, like the rest of us?

How about MP's being fined for overclaiming expenses, and sub-letting their second homes or constituency offices?

How about MP's having one home like the rest of us? If they want another then let them pay for it.

How about MP's paying for their own transport?

How about an MP's Pension Scheme which means they pay their own AVC's?

I could go on, but you get the drift.

Brown is old enough to remember Churchill.

Obama is not. He was about three when Churchill died.

ngodinhdiem @15wrote:

Nick,

At their Joint Press Conference, please can you ask President Obama if he agrees with Gordon Brown's analysis that the Global downturn started in America and was Washington's fault.


Brilliant!

Do it, Nick! If you've an ounce of journalistic courage you'll ask the question.

So what if your BBC bosses will have a coronary.... You'll attain immortality!

I see that even the celebrated Warren Buffett has owned up to some mistakes, unlike the Golem. And Buffett has come up with a catchy little phrase: "Beware geeks bearing formulas".
Well, I'd advise Obama to beware Golems bearing pen holders.

Nick

"It started in America", so Flash boldly informed us,

"the solution will come out of America", so both Flash and AD both informed us

so, couldn't we just leave him over there?

it would be justice after all:

a) the problem is (now) in America
b) the solution is to leave the problem (Gordon) in America
c) Blair could get him another job, I'm sure, over at JP Morgan

let's just get on without him

@12
bang on , not to mention the ww1 rifles stored in oil sold to the UK as well, the UK not long ago paid off its debt to the US for WW2

The US has no soft spot for the UK as remember the Government of the time tried to rule the US, the East India company also tried underhand tactics against Scottish companies set up in South America, which gave rise to the Royal Bank of Scotland,
Roosvelt from his personal diaries had more in common with De gaulle than Churchill, the myth of a special friendship is just that, a myth

The assumption that Blair had a relationship with Bush is false, and the view that Brown is not as flash as Blair so is unlikely to get on with Obama is a non story, now not in anyway to defend Brown,
but a choice between a dour PM who tells the truth and does good for the country is far better than a flash Blair all mouth and no trousers, but people dont see through that.

The Uk is nothing in the great scheme of things and the sooner a PM of this country does something based on that the better.


and a quick note on the news that the Scottish Government plan to increase booze prices, and it is getting more hostility than a banker raiding the bank

At least they are trying something it affects lives, costs a lot in terms of crime and damage and violence, but the twits on Radio 5 were going on about its better for the shops to be making money on something that sells in a recession ???? meaning put the prices up it affects the shops
how shortsighted is that.

so next they can say sell drugs at supermarkets because the businesses need the money

this is also coming from the Scottish press who are Labours mouth piece, no doubt operation dam everything even if it is reasonable , is in play, because they need the votes if they ever have a hope of winning the next national election

Nick, you should be ashamed of yourself mentioning Churchill and Brown in the same sentence. One a great patriot who loved and was proud of the country he fought for in the Sudan and WW1, and the other a man who has little sense of patriotism, prefering instead to see himself as a citizen of a federal Europe , to which end he has surrendered all of our rights and traditions. Now he is off to the United States, hoping to be seen as a great statesman but instead being seen as yesterday's man by his own people and probably by the United States as well. His lap dog approach to the previous administration,and the way his government allows terrorists and potential terrorists free access to the UK will hardly endear him to the American people.

Nick I appreciate you're busy what with your new Radio series and Your "Life on Mars" type Blogging where we are taken back to events of yesteryear thus providing us with pleasant distractions from the Political Mayhem which is going on in the present day BUT it would be nice if you could spare some time and give us your views on

"It might be enforceable in a court of law this contract, but it's not enforceable in the court of public opinion and thats where the Government steps in"

Which is quite possibly the most authoritarian statement a British Cabinet Minister has ever said publicly.

Its the talk of the steamie but you know if your busy...maybe next time !

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

GB's plan of being seen with other leaders in the vain attempt to look like a serious politician will not work this time.....next to obama he will look like the busted flush he is. in the first press conference with obama and GB please ask... "mr brown do you still consider that is was the problems in America that caused the run on Northern Rock?"....

When Brown met Obama at Downing Street last summer, it was the Brit who was world leader whilst his visitor was a mere candidate.


For heavens sake Nick get real. Brown a lworld leader? You really must be joking.

I hope gordon is travelling by schedule airline flights hes racked up one hell of a lot of tax payer paid for flights.

I hope Obama makes him squirm for blaming the US for all the world economic ills,that he failed to report on when chancellor......

This is really grasping at straws

Churchill my butt

Nick
In your news conference
try these

Mr President the Prime Minister believes that this is no time for a Novice could you please tell us what it is that you lack when compared to him?

Or

Mr President the Prime Minister believes that this economic depression started and is the fault of the USA.
Would you like to apologise to the people of the UK for the mess the USA have caused as no blame can be attached the UK authorities?

Nick, I am really disappointed with you that your article can be so bland and talk about Churchillian visits! Its positively bizarre.

Reading this article gives no reflection of how most people feel about the Government, that they are in crisis, incompetent and morally bankrupt.

Rushing to the states for a photo opportunity will not in anyway improve Gordon who has a 'charisma bypass' and someone needs to tell him urgently that he and his Labour cronies have substantially lost most of the electoral support they had.

Every week we get worse economic news and more political banana skins. Last week was the embarrassing news of how ministers cannot do the simple things like check on termination payments for Fred the Shred.

The week before, we found out that the Home Secretary, supposedly the bastion of Law and Order, has the values of a 'common crook'. She claims her sisters house is her main residence and her 'real home' where she lives with her children and husband is 'of course' her second home!

Surprise surprise, in a world where Mandellson can get caught out lying twice, have to resign but is still in the critical role of Business Minister, she has still not resigned. Why should she? When no one seems to be honest or competent!

This catalogue of disaster after disaster has been going on for months.

So forget about photo opportunities and please report on the real issues that affect Joe public!

Nicholas:

This is a joke, right?

You're actually paid to write this?

Seriously???




Nice work if you can get it.

Sterling to Old Rope exchange rate must be healthy.

Brown clearly wants to hang on the coat tails of Obama and I dread to think what he is agreeing on our behalf.

You can compare him to Churchill if you like, but we can see through this as idle reporting and doing a bit of naval gazing instead of looking at the issues Brown has put us in.

What happened to the all new Nick Robinson - you know the one who was questioning a few of the things that had taken place recently? The one who should be asking about Hardman and her assertions at the weekend rather than providing us with the spin that has been requested? We've seen this fella before and he isn't a good as supersleuth reporter Nick!

In Obama's inauguration speech he says:

"In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying camp fires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive... that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet."

The common danger was GB. The President chose his words carefully. He did not want to be regarded in anyway as Kenyan and a British colonial lackey but an American patriot. Perhaps GB will receive a frosty reception after some honest questions fail in reply as honest answers?

A Wall Street Journal take on the Brown Obama meeting:

If Brown wants to forge a special partnership with Obama -- Gordbama anyone? -- the foundations of that will be laid on the first impressions he makes on Tuesday. Opinion is divided on how well the two will get on. "We're unlikely to see a repeat of the close partnership between Bush and Blair," said Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. "I'm confident that you're not going to see Obama and Brown clicking as personalities." (And don't even think we'll see the kind of rapport that existed between Maggie and Ronald.)
Bush and Blair surprised many with their rapport given their strikingly different characters, but Gardiner says they were united by the global threat of terrorism and "a common world view that defined the global landscape in terms of good and evil." The same can't be said for Obama and Brown. While they are both left-wing politicians, "there is very little that unites the two in terms of a coherent ideological outlook," he added.
That will be a shame for the British Government, which is already worried about the Obama administration's apparent intent to forge stronger partnerships with the likes of France, Germany and China, and "undercut" the special relationship, he added.

This is all in the wake of Browns eagerness to be seen on the world stage as a world leader. However to compare him to Churchill is a great mistake. Thank to the media frenzy over Blair, British politics now require charisma in the leaders we choose and substance is now almost discounted. However, Churchill was a politician who had other qualities, good or bad, that made him stand out above other politicians of his day. What we have now is someone who cannot punch above his weight, who constantly repeats his mantras, but on a style of presence, alas he has none. This is not going to change the views of many, on this blog or otherwise, that Gordon Brown has in many ways let the side down, with not so much as a sniff of acknowledgment of the impact of this downturn. Also, in the US, the newly elected president constantly voted against the war, and as Brown kept very quiet during the buildup and aftermath of that event, then he might be seen as one of the architects in this whole sorry affair by Obama. For the Downing Street officials to assume that by closely linking the PM to the president is a blatant whiff of straw clutching.
Not going to wash with the public, methinks

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Personally, I don't find this very contrived sort of political theatre at all interesting.

But somehow, it is very important to some of the 'players'.

As Churchill has been mentioned, I wonder just how many people understand that the master strategist of WWII was actually the Chief of Imperial General Staff (CIGS) Allen Brooke, who somehow kept Winston Churchill on track and not only that also persuaded the Americans to also keep to his grand strategic plan for beating the Germans.

They really do not make them like that anymore in our country although America still does, as General Petraeus has shown.

President Obama has a chance to make a mark on world history but our guys?

I don't think so.

Weird.

That's about the best I can say. Excellent Cat has summarised the history accurately and others have expressed their disgust at this Bambi'ing piece of drive on the left.

Tony Bliar's chinos? Well, there was I thinking Camp David was a retreat formerly known as Shangri-La...

PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT COMPARE brown

TO CHURCHILL!

When we all talk about Government debt, i.e. billions of deficit, I just have one small question,

Who do we actually owe the money to?

It's the one question that never seems to be answered or analysed and yet is the solution to all the problems, JP Morgan and Rothschild have anything to do with it?

PS I am not a conspiracy theorist, do your own reserach and try to find out who exactly we owe, all our huge National debt too, and you will probably face the same obstacles I found.

Let's hope Obama's been briefed and doesn't think Brown represents us... (he doesn't).

I'd like to be a fly on the wall when they start talking about how Brown and his PM Blair involved not only the UK but also the US in Iraq. My theory is that it was only Blair's compliance with Bush's plans that emboldened the Shrub to invade, without Blair and Brown onside the invasion wouldn't have happened.

Oh yeah and Nick... the only way Brown even faintly resembles Churchill was that they are/were both on the tubby side although Churchill had the excuse of being around 20 years older (and wiser) when he led this country through the second world war.

So, Mr. Brown's going to Washington ... I expect, like all British Prime Ministers since Churchill, he'll be anxious to tell us about the Special Relationship, productive talks blah blah... it's all nonsense. US political leaders couldn't give a damn about Britain, France, Germany or Europe in general. It doesn't cross their event horizon... I'm reminded of a former colleague and top bullshitter who, around 1977, spent a fortnight on the Costa Brava. He came back from his holidays to tell us - and I quote - " Now that I've lived for a short time in Spain, I can honestly say that I'm very well up with the problems of post-Franco Spain" ... I anticipate much the same from Mr. Brown. Like Lord Mandelson getting involved with the hiving off of the Royal Mail, it gives these utterly sad people something to do with their empty lives ... only problem is that we'll be asked to entrust them with the running of the country soon.

I really do not like this comparison that has grown up between Brown and Churchill over the last few months.

Churchill was farsighted and could see what was coming. Brown keeps being overtaken by the everyday events and is forever trying to get his balance.

We don't have any speeches by Churchill that say "We would have fought them on the beaches ... if we'd got there quick enough and anyway it wasn't my fault, it's a global war stupid".

It is a truly terrible parallel to draw.

Nick,


As you well know - Brown's trip is just a vomit inducing PR jamboree.

You yourself have been getting excited about the Brown / Obama love in for months.

This meeting will change nothing. Brown will just claim that Obama's initiatives mirror his own. He'll have his photo taken with the President. Then he'll fly home and tell us how he is leading the world.

We could have just sent a life size cardboard cut-out of Gordon Brown out and achieved the same effect.

Once again, the spirit of Churchill has been summoned up by a British prime minister on the eve of his first visit to see a new American president.

One big difference between Churchill and Brown is that Churchill did not have such a direct involvement in the cause of the Second World War.

On the other hand, Brown has had direct involvment in the handling of the UK economy which with our US allies has led to a financial crisis, the likes of which we are unlikely to see again in our lifetime.

Nick, if any of your forthcoming series on PMs dare make further associations with the 'spirit of Churchill' and the 'incompetence of Brown', I will begin to wonder if yet even more taxpayers money has been wasted.

6.subedeithemomgol
The only World War II leader the Golem in anyway resembles is Hitler
=============
How much I despise the wretched man, let's be sensible. The only resemblance I can find is in the same style (or lack of style) in his tailoring.

"Update 17:20" re penholders....



What is this, the chuffin' History Channel?



Dear BBC:

The FTSE loses 5% on the day, the Leader of the house of commons refuses to ask direct written questions because they'll make her look a complete chump, the PM is about to try and visit a nation he has blamed for the worlds' economic crisis and all your political editor can talk about is PEN HOLDERS???

What in the name of all that is holy is going on here??? Has the BBC turned into Pravda????

I misread that, and thought Gordon was contributing a penis holder to Barack, which would seem a bit over the top for a first date!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Nick,

Churchill was a real global leader. He successfully led the world's fight back against Hitler.


Brown, however, stabbed Blair in the back in order to get the top job and eats his own bogeys in parliament. Brown also has a large responsibility for destroying the nations finances.


There is no comparison.

Well after GB's visit, I can almost hear the conversation at the COB in Iraq......

No Brigadier, I didn't say we were going back to barracks..... I said we are going to back Barrack..

Why has the bust of Churchill been sent back, though? What is the reason?

Brown? Churchill?

I seem to recall Brown wrote a book about Courage. I only ever saw it in the remaindered bins. Didn't he drop into "front-line" positions a few times over the last 18 months? Bet he never took a "snatch vehicle" his own ministers believe to be unsafe.

Seem to recall that Churchill was a soldier who actually went to battle and was one of the first foreign correspondents who got really stuck into what was happening. He made plenty of mistakes, too.

I hope that Obama (who is a comletely untried leader) and Brown (ditto - which is to say he's had the chance, but so far doesn't seem able to lead an ice cream to a cone) can get on.

Funnily enough, I rather hope that Sarkozy gets on a bit better with Obama. At least he's got a recognition that his own people deserve a bit of protection...

Brown still seems to believe that he can save the world.

Sad man.

No 47, what about Zhukov, Konev and Rokossovsky?
And this is important in the global context of today. Will the Chinese be the equivalent of the Soviets in World War II? That is to say a totalitarian regime willing to make the sacrifices the Western democracies were unwilling to take?
It's all very well chuntering on about who was the presiding genius of the Anglo-American effort against Hitler's tyranny, but it relied heavily on the Soviets throwing countless numbers into the meat-grinder on the Eastern Front.

I suppose the one similarity between Brown & Churchill is that one had Scottishness in his blood and the other just had plenty of Scotch... when it comes to leadership and integrity they are very different entities.

I don't think Obama will give two hoots to the opinions, ideas or thoughts of an unpopular passed his sell-by date British Prime Minister. Rightly or wrongly he's probably wondering why we haven't sent Cam to save time, energy and money.

The human race has never really been able to think outside the box!

Gordon Brown is as far removed from Winston Churchill as Eddy The Eagle Edwards is from Brad Pitt!

Nick how can you put Brown & Churchill in the same sentence?

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

(Unless of-course you were comparing our worst ever leader next to our greatest!)

Some Politicians are style over substance (Blair)

Some Politicians are substance over style (Thatcher)

On rare occasions politicians have style and substance ( Churchill).

Then we have Brown - you can guess the rest!

It is unrealistic of bloggers to expect Nick to pose any very awkward questions to the Prime Minister or indeed any senior politician, especially in the presence of the US President.

Because, if in a moment of madness, that actually happened then the consequences for the political journalist concerned would be very dire indeed.

The moment itself would be extremely difficult, although professional politicians have a standard toolkit to deal with this sort of thing, for example, treating the question with humour and therefore giving a 'jokey' response.

But later on, the true consequences for the offending journalist would soon appear.

In the form of sanctions, ranging from non-invites to attend these jamborees abroad, no leaked political stories ever coming his way, through to Press Conferences where the offending journalist is 'blanked', that is never given the opportunity to ask any questions and so on.

That dear blogger, is probably the reality of this sometimes difficult political journalists job.

This is one of those unequal relationships where one side i.e. the hapless political journalist needs the politican much more than the other side does.

Dear nick
Absloute ---- Brown is not worthy of even using the GREAT MANS NAME, under any circumsatnces, none what so ever with out any mitigation. Brown is a FRAUS, incompetant and should be removed now.

FOR GODS SAKE MAN GO -----
Chamberlains crucifiction in 1939.

No man alive today can resurect the persona of SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL FOR ALL HIS FAULTS HE WOULD BE LITTLE ANY POLITICIAN FORM THE DAY OF HIS DEATH TO ANYONE TODAY,

Brown cannot coprehend what Winston Churchill did for FREEDOM and its is an insult to use his name in the name of the beholder who created this mess in the first place .. no nono NO
There is no one in Britain today who will stand up for those who gave their LIVES for the freedom we enjoyed until 1997,
only to be sold out by a labour government who have lost the will of the people.

I say GOOD RIDANCE and may you folloe Oliver Cromwell to Traitors gate.

Sorry, this is utter nonsense, you should be sacked for this garbage.
I suppose you consider yourself a pro as well.....

Nick,

Please stop comparing Brown to Churchill; you/BBC do it all the time, and it's hugely insulting to both the memory/actions of Churchill, and to the intelligence of the general public.

Brown is not Churchill, much as you/BBC would like to spin, neither is he the messiah (a line which you also like to spin) - he's a very very very naughty boy who has totally ruined our economy through gross negligence over many years.

Why is Brown allowed to get away with everything? Surely his 'no time for a novice' remark from last year should be used to cause some embarrassment

the man has said (let alone done) so many stupid things that he should by rights have been out on his ear a year ago, but still he goes on, the human punchbag

I appreciate the Churchill allegory is all Nick's work but it really does take the mick, Brown is a charlatan

and why are they removing the bust of Churchill?

subedeithemomgol @ 64

Zhukov, Konev and Rokossovsky were first rate military men but, and I hate to say this, especially with respect to Zhukov, they had to grovel before Stalin.

I have always had a soft spot for the Russians and fully recognise the stupendous sacrifice they made in, as you accurately say, the 'meat-grinder' of the Eastern Front.

Certainly the partnership between Churchill and Allen Brooke was one of mutual respect and Churchill was intelligent enough to listen when Allen Brooke reigned in Churchill's wilder flights of military fantasy.

I tend to share the distaste of fellow bloggers who do not want to see Churchill and Brown co-joined in any way.

In terms that even Gordon Brown could easily understand its like trying to compare George Best with some journeyman from, well, Raith Rovers.

6 subedeithemomgol

That's very harsh...

Hitler was popular

I've been looking at Britain's worst Prime Ministers and realised Brown is just about to overtake Eden's time in office - now he'll have the honour of third shortest time as PM (post-war) - but at least Eden got elected

I spent three mostly sober years at Cardiff Uni studying modern history.

Strangely, I never once came across any accounts of Churchill being complicit in any way with the Nazi war machine in the run up to the war.

Neither do I recall any instances of Churchill forgetting to make strategic decisions, once in power, because he wasn't aware what the Nazis were up to until they were swarming all over him.

If ever there was a statesman who based his outlook on "prevention, not cure", it was Churchill. He had the foresight to see what was brewing up in the 1930s.

And then look at sad old Brown with his tired mantra of "I didn't know" and his threadbare ethos of (badly thought out) cure rather than prevention.

Three fundamental differences therefore:

Churchill fought a huge problem, whilst Brown is part of a huge problem.

Churchill was generally liked by most, whilst Brown is generally disliked / laughed at by most.

Churchill had a US aircraft carrier named after him, whilst Brown would be lucky to get his name adorning a tug boat.

RE: JohnConstable

“It is unrealistic of bloggers to expect Nick to pose any very awkward questions to the Prime Minister or indeed any senior politician, especially in the presence of the US President.”

Hi John – Persuasively you augment your point by listing the various consequences which would befall such a foolhardy journalist. You conclude by saying “This is one of those unequal relationships where one side i.e. the hapless political journalist needs the politician much more than the other side does.”

Of course, your statement is an accurate reflection of the current situation, but it is only true because the lobby hacks have historically prostituted their profession. In the natural order – a politician should need access to the media to be successful; just as much, as a journalist needs access to GVN to be successful in his or her career. If the lobby acted as a pack i.e. refused to be cowed, or co-operate with politicians (or simply outed them to the public) who blacklisted journalists for doing their job, then relationship between the media and the political elite would be far more even-handed.

So yes John, I do expect Nick Robinson to ask awkward questions (even in the presence of a U.S President). And why - because it is his job – the job that we the licence fee payers pay him to do – and why do I pick on Nick? Simple – as the BBC’s senior political correspondent he is the most powerful political hack in the land, he is the one journalist that Brown could not blank – it would be too obvious. So if Nick had the courage to lead the way, hopefully his more junior colleagues would follow suit. Is this unrealistic? Well I can remember a certain Nick Robinson challenging Tony Blair about the accuracy of a Labour campaign poster – at the poster’s unveiling. He was right then – and he would be right now.

excallentcatblogger #12 and romeplebian #31 . . .

Your historical knoledge (especially on World War II) is a bit shaky, to put it midly.

First, to say that the US could care less about the UK and give 18th and 19th century policies and behaviors as evidence of that is rediculous, since we weren't exactly the best of friends at the time of the US's revolution up through the time of Lincon. A better phrasing of that might have been that "sometimes some Republican presidents don't give two hoots about the UK's thoughts on issues," and that, instead, I think would have been much more acurate, as is evident and demonstrated in the Bush-Blair "partnership!!"

Regarding WW II, let me just say that based on what historians have recently discovered, Rosavelt went to every length possible to engage th US in World War II. Whether it be making speaches about supporting the war "in thought" while pledging to stay out in action, or itentionally leaving US ships in the path of German U-boats in the hopes that one wold be hit or sunk to give him an excuse to enter, or the secret coraspondants between Rosavelt and Churchill from the fall of 39 until our entry in 41 as is evidenced in the Tyler Kent affair, or what some say Rosavelt's knowing of the planned Japanese attak on Pearl Harbor and him deliberately choosing not to do anything about it and letting it happen as a back door way to enter the war!!

Rosavelt had been swept into office during the great depression because the previous Republican administration of Herbert Hoover had failed to fix it. When World War II came around, the majority of the American people (with still strong memmories of our involvement in World War I) wanted to stay out of World War II. Rosavelt knew this, and knew that the only way that he could continue to be re-elected would be to promis again and again to not enter the war. His Republican aponants always wanted to join, but had to campaign on domestic issues because they knew that the American people largely didn't want to join. That's what frustrates me. Instead of being honest with the American people and letting the chips fall where they may, Rosavelt was so desprit to stay in power that he snuck around, and lied and lied about what he was doing, what he thought, and what he wanted to do, and in the process nearly broke every single constitutional law to try to get us into the war!!! His lies make the lies of today's politicions look miniscule!! If I were a voter in 1940 I would not have voted for him!


So to claim that the US had entirely selfish aims during World War II is I think at best childish and at worst down right offensive.

oh, I'm sure this comment is going to get some flak..

There has been a lot of comment about Brown being so poor in comparison to Churchll. While I'm in no way a defender of Brown, its worth pointing our prior to 1938 Churchill was seen as a political has-been

He also wasn't a saint.

- In 1916, as First Lord of the Admiralty he was key to the Gallipoli Disasters. This leds to the deaths of tens of thousands of British and particularly Aussie/NZ troops that proved fruitless. Comparison with Blair's war in Iraq?

- In the mid 20's as Chancellor (yes him too) his policies on returning to the Gold standard caused a UK recession/depression. So, in that regard he matches Brown.

- In 1926 he wanted to use the Army to break the strikes....I believe machine guns were mentioned. Comparisons with the heavy handed many of our Govt?

- He voted against Indian independance, hardly a man for democracy when it didn't suit him.

Oh and he twice changed political parties to ensure that he was supporting the side that was likely to be domainant.


There are numerous examples of other mistakes. I'm not trying to knock the man. All I'm point out is that he was not a saint, and the moral of this little tale is that you can still make mistakes and yet turn things around and save your country.

Just had a look at your 'Prime Ministers' series - looking at some of the most influential PMs we've ever had and you omit Gladstone?

If you just wanted to focus on how they used power you could've examined his role as pretty much the first 'democratic' or 'people's' PM, not to mention all the reforms both he and Disraeli implemented in response to the challenges of late Victorian society

I can understand leaving Churchill and more modern PMs (ie Thatcher) because they are heavily covered and well known, but Gladstone is surely a must-have

...maybe he wasn't sneaky enough

No 74, the broader point I made was that for all the efforts of the Western allies in World War II, they relied heavily on a totalitarian regime that didn't have to consider things such as mammoth casualty lists (although even Stalin, hardly a man of generous sympathies, believed that Zhukov was "careless" with the lives of his troops).
Roosevelt left the Poles to their tragic fate lest it interfere with his re-election campaign in 1944. And Churchill, while no doubt wringing his hands, didn't make it an issue.
Now we seem to be in a similar situation, with the politicians in the Western world seemingly desperate to avoid casualities caused by the years of excess.
Anyway, back to the analysis of our military commanders, it should be said that Stalin, like Churchill, was intelligent enough to leave the fighting to the generals, knowing that once the war was over he'd be writing the history of it and not the generals.

Nick: I see you are again one of the New Labour entourage, travelling with Brown's party. Why do you bother pretending to be even-handed?

I hope you or another journalist will ask Brown at the press conference why he has been blaming America for the financial meltdown for the last year.

JohnConstable. . .

You honestly think that all US presidents past, present and future ones have, and will forever more bann any and all journalists who dare ask even the slightest of difficult or aucward questions of them?

Do you not know of our first amendment?

Offensive!

perhaps you've got us confused with China?

Nick,

I think a question which must be asked is why is that the CIA have destroyed the tapes of the interrogation of a substantial number of combatants, insurgents or whatever the 'enemy' are to be known as.

Bearing in mind that no evidence could be found of maltreatment of prisoners, as was said in the statement to parliament only last week by John Hutton, could it be that the evidence has been destroyed. That is why there is no evidence.

"global....new deal...churchill...I saved the world...all america's fault...I didn't know...not my fault..."

BBC/Labour are both *so* fired after 2010.

BBC is spinning the line that there'll be riots in the streets because of Fred's personal pension, and that's a classic bbc/labour lie/diversion.

People are worried about the economy collapsing due to labour's negligence; they don't care about one man's pension, they just want to be able to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads.

You want to speak about riots? Rather than rioting about one man's 600grand pension, maybe people will riot about our unelected PM spending over a trillion pounds on bank bailout contracts that he never even bothered to read.

Get your coat nick; your labour spin isn't going to be stomached after the next election.

@78
in reference to Roosvelt, he is on record using the when putting out a fire quote, to mean, let them burn there is no need to get involved, they also knew there were German subs off the US coast this shaped Roosvelts desire to get involved, because he could see the dollar signs, but I agree the US public were never in favour of the war.

Back to Churchill, as the above poster said, whilst he was the right man at the right time during WW2
he was a failure for the most part of his career, his actions causes many many deaths needlessly, and where it not for his mother he would not have got to where he did.

#79 You are absolutely right of course.

Churchill was an inspiring war leader, but a hopeless military strategist.

His peacetime political record was abysmal. He had a knack for getting it wrong. First, he left the Tory party over its abandonment of free trade, then a dead duck. Then left the Liberals because he opposed Irish home rule. His 1925 budget was a disaster which caused depression, unemployment and the 1926 strike. He himself described the gold standard decision as "the biggest mistake I have ever made." He also opposed the abdication of Edward VIII.

When proposing to send in the troops to coerce the miners, his comment was "get the moles back into the holes." This was not forgotten, and contributed to his 1945 electoral defeat. In fact, it's worth noting that Churchill never won a majority of the popular vote as Tory leader. Even in the 1951 election, which he "won" , Attlee's Labour party got 48.8% of the vote, as opposed to 44.4% for Churchill's Tories. Like Brown, he too was an "unelected" Prime Minister.

All that being said, at least Churchill was a talented artist and writer, and a very witty man. I'm not really sure what Gordon Brown's redeeming features are.

79

It's true Churchill was no saint, and I often laugh when people don't realise how poor his second government was, tho he was pushing 80 and very ill so I hardly blame him

And we can discuss the rather patchy career of Churchill all we like, but not here - it's best not to critique Churchill rationally where less-informed Sun and Mail readers might realise and start shouting

But anyway - what I meant to say was these comparisons refer to the popular depictions of Churchill as the great orator (which he was) and war leader - they draw on his public image, I don't think anyone is trying to use the comparison properly so I think it's fair to decry any comparison between the two as it will only relate to the 'greatest Briton' image

As far as I'm concerned Churchill could make inspiring speeches, was wanted by the people, and believed in liberty - something Brown can never live up to

Nick,

this is just a verbatim rehash of your BBC evening news report, very lazy.

I have to disagree with the majority of posters on here, in that I can see a similarity between Brown and Churchill.

Those sagging jowls, now just close your eyes and imagine Brown saying:

"Hoh yus! 25% discount when you insure both your home and contents with us!"

Interesting...

Robert P in China, Nick R in the states.

In the last couple of weeks our Gordon meets with the Chinese government, the Pope and now President Obama.

Which journalist is in the Vatican then?

Wonder why Gordon is haunting around such powerful heads of state?

And why did he order all the recordings of honesty, sincerity, humility and apology from President Obama?

Wonder if faith, hope and charity come into it all?

Why are our senior BBC journalists removed from their normal positions and sent on jolly trips?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch the roller coaster is rattling on a double speed!

Which child will have a party and wreck the house while the parents are away?

Off to try and find a relevant, hard hitting BBC blog full of gritty, straight forward journalism

Off to the BBC blog forest in search of a Unicorn methinks!

Send the search and rescue party if I'm not back soon....!

Anyway, of more interest than this piffle would be a blog on the current Brown-Harman situation.
It looks to me like the Golem has used Sir Fred and Harman's undeniable stupidity to eliminate her as a possible rival. There she was yesterday, spouting twaddle about the "court of public opinion" and the "government stepping in", while today the Golem said if the lawyers said Sir Fred's pension was okay, it's okay.
So, that's Harman's bid for leadership holed below the water line.

Jonathan_cook (post 54) wrote:

“We could have just sent a life size cardboard cut-out of Gordon Brown out and achieved the same effect.”

Not so, jonathan. A cardboard cut-out would have edged it for charisma.

We all know what is going to happen. We are going to hear the same droning disgusting British supplication we always hear. "We have a special relationship, the US and UK." "We have common values and interests." "We are in this together and share a common destiny." "Pleeeeeze, pleeeeze help us out, keep us from drowing again." "Don't pass laws that favor creating American jobs over British jobs." "Don't shut the door on us."

I say: "let them shiver let them moan, let them promise to atone, (we should) slam the door and let the hellcat freeze."

Get that curry sauce off your tie yet Robinson or did you just throw it out? Why not try to wangle an invitation to a White House press conference? This is a completely new bunch. Maybe they don't know. Maybe the last bunch didn't tell them.

I was in Borders book store a few days ago and was browsing through the reference books. There was a brand new unabridged dictionary of the English language. I looked up the word "gray" and much to my astonishment there where I expected the definition to be weren't words but instead, a picture of Gordon Brown.

Gordon Brown is so gray, the dreariest day looks sunny by comparison. He was born to be Chancellor of the Eschequer, he has a face that has the word "accountant" written all over it.

After he's blown through, the other two blind mice Angel Eyes and SarKrazy will follow. The parade must go on. Big photo ops with America's shiny new celebrity President. Chance to get away from the front lines for a few days of welcome cocktail parties, other assorted boredom, and disingenuous words of friendship and false hope in Washington DC. Then it's back to the hot seat in Merry Olde.

Living in US.....Gordon will be more of an embarrassment here than he is at home! Please, can we not curtail this unelected piece of 'stuff'!

If anyone is listening....please do not embarrass us by allowing or encouraging Gordon to make the UK appear foolish. It willl be an exctruciating encounter - have some pride my people - do not allow Gordon access to the world stage.....please! He is woefully and poorly equipped for the task!

So

We have just paid out all this money for you all to fly out to the US so he can have a 1.5 hours with Obama only after he has seen the Boy Scouts of America.

Then no news confrence so you can't ask if Obama is a novice or it all being Americas fault.

More chickens coming home to roost. To much grandstanding by Brown and obviously Obama sees Brown as a man of the past like Bush.

Churchill; the only resemblance Brown has to this man is to his rear end.