What Brown will say to Congress

"someone who's been at the economic helm for more than a decade."

Hence the economic catastrophe this Country is in.

Oh dear.....

How far reaching is the "collective" in "collective responsibility"

As far reaching as the collective responsibility for "10 years of economic success" was, I hope

You know what it's like when someone says something that makes you furious!!!!

Apparently Andy B and James P were seen rolling about the Commons Tea Room floor at the stand up gag des nos jours. The line?

"If you can remember the sixties.......you'll be dead soon."

Why so funny?????

Gordon ought to make the most of it while he can.

Nick,

I must applaud your efforts to try to get Crash to answer the one specific question about collective responsibility

It can not be your fault that an answer was not forthcoming, even when you give him an "open goal" in which to score

Your colleague, Mr Peston, seems to be reporting possibilities of riots

Would an apology assuage those sparks?

Are the Americans really stupid enough to respect him?

he must be loving actually getting an audience (ie not being despised)

/I'm offering evens he gets laughed out

"I think there's always a need for humility and there's always a need to accept collective responsibility and I don't think I would run away from responsibility for what happens. I'm just trying to explain to you what actually happened round the world."

........................................................


Well, how about an apology for starters, then?

Yeah I'm sure that the current Cabinet know all about the joys of collective responsibility. Personally forging a brave new economic order and saving the world on the way up and socialising the failure on the way down. Rupert, Trevor and Alice, aren't having any of it anymore. And neither are we Nick. The fact that Johnson and Darling have woken up and smelt the coffee tells you that it is more than the finest Brazilian that is brewing back home.

Mr Brown will also leave the United States lucky if he can hold onto his job.

Yes, well, pushing globalisation this afternoon he will omit to say that any grand bargain will pull the African countries out of poverty - or will he?

That is one huge bone of contention. Because, as that World Bank economist said on the Politics show at midday yesterday, we gave those countries their independence and they screwed up (in essence).

Corrupt leaders such as Mgabe will be sitting in the sun being fanned by servants just waiting for a huge handout courtesy of the rest of us.

Two cheers, Nick. Listened to your "Today" piece and you did try to get him to apologise.

Next time you get the chance, and he comes out with the 10p tax claptrap, you could remind him of what he actually said to the Labour conference. No apology - just that he was hurt that people misunderstood his motives.

One more heave and you might just get an "on air" admission he got something wrong.

If congress have any sense, they'll meet his speech with deafening silence - those of them who manage to stay awake through it, that is.

This publicity stunt will not impress the voters in this country,nor will his bestowing an honorary knight hood on Edward Kennedy who acted as American fundraiser for the IRA and most certainly has done nothing for Britain over the years. Honours like this should be the decision of parliament, i.e. the British people, not Gordon Brown. It seems Brown will stoop to any level to curryy favour on both sides of the atlantic. Congress and the Senate will not have a great deal of interest in what yesterday's man has to say, knowing the state of the British economy and how it got there, and who was responsible.

re. the interview with GB on Today:

There, Nick, that wasn't so hard. Let's hope we can now see a widespread return to penetrating but fair and balanced reporting and questioning, not allowing politicians and especially GB to evade difficult questions.

But you should also have pressed Brown a bit harder. His assertion that he was always in favour of tough regulation won't wash, and you should have picked him up on it. Too many of us remember his speech to the CBI in 2005: "Not just a light touch but a limited touch."

Nonetheless, if Brown is going to genuinely change his approach and is not just saying this because he's in Washington most people will give him a fair hearing. But if this is just more spin and crocodile tears we will return to the fray with great ferocity.

"I think there's always a need for humility and there's always a need to accept collective responsibility and I don't think I would run away from responsibility for what happens. I'm just trying to explain to you what actually happened round the world."

===

I'm confused, is that his idea of an apology, or just him saying that he might apologise?

"I think there's always a need for humility and there's always a need to accept collective responsibility and I don't think I would run away from responsibility for what happens. I'm just trying to explain to you what actually happened round the world."

Only once backed into a corner does Gordon Brown relent and relax his stubborn attitude. Had he not been wrongfooted or embarrassed by Darling's Daily Telegraph interview he would not have used the words. There had certainly been no sign of contrition or humility to date.

Whether or not the United States was the major contributing factor, in his oft repeated words it was, why not say again now? Apportioning blame to the US is a convenient way for Brown to ignore/overlook the fact he gave the City of London free rein to effectively do as they wish for fear the wealth generators would upsticks and leave. He could and should have done considerably more and now it is far too late. Brown changes tack when it suits him, no way to run a country and no way to inspire confidence in the country. It is high time the country was given the choice, more of the same ineptitude or allow Cameron or Clegg an opportunity to undo the damage.

As RobinJD has frequently requested.............................................

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

Nicholas:

I am normally one of your prime detractors, even sometimes calling your continued appointment into question as Editor.

However.

Haivng listened to the piece this morning on Today, I've changed my mind.

You did put some of the types of questions that are on the minds of the electorate and GB pathalogically refused to answer.

You did bring this up in your peice and also in conversation with John Humphries.

Good analysis, pointed probing questions... can we have more of the same please and deeper, more pertinent?

I was driving into work listening to the piece and for some reason thought I was having an epiphany (better get that checked by a GP), in that I felt that the PM should be given a reasonable chance... must have been something to do with the unexpected sun because as soon as he opened his trap and failed to answer your question, any sympathy or empathy just evaporated.

He, GB, is truly, pathalogically incapable of admitting to any kind of mistake, any kind of bad decision. Collective responsibility to him appears to mean "I claim the glory, you all get the blame".

This wilful, hubristic streak will cost him dear with the electorate. "Yes, a mistake was made with the 10p tax rate" - but that isnt accepting personal responsibility for it - its putting any percieved blame on the office of the Chancellor rather than the incumbent who made the decision in the first place.

GB, as you pointed out says that you have to know whats wrong before you can fix it. Yep, agree with that. The thing is, the undecided amongst the electorate would probably be more sympathetic to him if he could just admit that he is as fallible as the rest of us - by wandering into the minefield its pretty pointless blaming the map when the reader of said map played a part in getting us in there in the first place.

I have a feeling that is going to be his eventual undoing.

Hence a car journey started in peace, tranquility, the bright Wiltshire sun and "well, maybe he deserves a chance" ended 1.7 miles later with "You lying g*t, why dont you just SAY IT!"

Good piece this morning Nick, well done.

More of the same please.

Nick, another bland article that you could have written in just 5 minutes. Why not discuss the fact that Congress are really not happy about Brown blaming America all the time; that the US followed his global lead; that a "fiscal stimulus" is needed when they have done massively more than him; that this is "not a time for inexperienced leaders" ; refusal to take the blame or say sorry; the complete and utter lie that he has been pressing for stronger global regulation when he has in fact been arguing for a less hands on regime for over a decade; that his creation of the supervision in the UK is not working and subsequent and its effect on global finances; that RBS has a US listing and has affected their businesses; etc...

So come on Nick show some real hard ball questioning and reporting of Brown's joke trip and fabrication of the real situation. The US are not happy so why should the BBC be?

I am not quite sure what is implied here. Are we expecting Gordon Brown to be "humble" in his speech to congress? Would that serve any purpose whatsoever here in the UK or there in the US? He is honoured with the opportunity of speaking to the whole of the US government in the presence of the man, who currently has the hopes of the world on his shoulders. I'm not sure that "humble" would either be appropriate or helpful.
It appears to me that at least part of this present economic crisis has been caused by financial institutions trading on possibilities and selling debts to one another.
Another apparent aspect of our economic situation in the UK is that we have based those same financial institutions on the US model of company hierachy, where the chief executive, the man at the helm, receives ridiculous awards for failure, whilst those who do the work are either comparatively seriously underpaid or now, liable to lose their jobs altogether.
This current financial institution strikes me as being like an economic revolution, where the pitfalls of moneytarism are exposed. We have had moneytarist prime ministers in the past, maybe they (if they are in a fit state to do so) should apologise for this situation. I am not of the opiniion our present PM should do so... and, if he did need to, the chancellor has done it for him.

What Mr Brow should explain to congress is how what he describes as a colossal secondary banking system was allowed to escape his attention as one of the world's most important banking regulators. Somehow I don't think it would have escaped the Bank of England's attention had Eddie Goerge had his way and been able to stop Gordon Brown changing for the worse the regulatory system. The FSA is Gordon Brown's creature and it has failed spectacularly either to regulate traditional banks or to spot the elephant in the room which is the secondary banking system. The PM had the resources of the Treasury, the Bank of England and the FSA to spot the hurricane coming. No-one in the world had better resources to see a disaster in the making, yet he failed. I wonder what he would be saying if this had happened on anyone else's watch. So the question for Congress and world leaders is 'Do you want to be led forward by the man who caused the problem?' If yes, more fool you, but the British people won't be fooled. They weren't fooled over Iraq, even when Congress was applauding Blair, and they won't be fooled this time.

Collective Resposibility?

What the hell does this government know about that?

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

usual blame culture - if you want to know who to blame you might consult wikipedia:

"The subprime mortgage crisis is an ongoing financial crisis triggered by a dramatic rise in mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures in the United States, with major adverse consequences for banks and financial markets around the globe. The crisis, which has its roots in the closing years of the 20th century, became apparent in 2007 and has exposed pervasive weaknesses in financial industry regulation and the global financial system.

Many U.S. mortgages issued in recent years were made to subprime borrowers, defined as those with lesser ability to repay the loan based on various criteria. When U.S. house prices began to decline in 2006-07, mortgage delinquencies soared, and securities backed with subprime mortgages, widely held by financial firms, lost most of their value. The result has been a large decline in the capital of many banks and USA government sponsored enterprises, tightening credit around the world."

So Brown is accurate in his comments.

10 Flame Pat - How generous of us to give countries their independence - not as though they have any right to it. Having ransacked their natural resources first, of course. What is the matter with these foreigners?

Nick,

First, well done for asking the key question yesterday.

Another postcard for your "comparisons with former Prime Ministers" collection to think over on your flight home...

Anthony Eden succeeded the ageing Churchill and is best remembered for a disatrous miscalculation over possible US intervention in the Suez Crisis.

Eden had staked everything on the USA coming to help Britain (with France and Israel) after the provocation of Egypt to fight a war over the nationalisation the Suez Canal.

Eden had misread US intentions and was effectively hung out to dry by his putative allies. Eden, of course, had suffered health problems before and in the aftermath and was forced to pass on the Premiership to the ineffectual Harold McMillan.

Looking back, Eden miscalculated the capacity of the Eisenhower regime for Protectionism and self-interest.

(Bearing in mind that this was the regime that had ousted President Arbenz in Guatemala over the interests of United Fruit and in the process radicalised an idealist young Argentine doctor).

Reading yesterday's body language, is there a danger that the current Prime Minister thinks his views are shared by Barack Obama?

It didn't look so to me.

Anyone remember David Mellor?

His crime: knocking off Antonia, he put his hands up and said, I've embarrised the government, I'm off. Major accepted his resignation.

Apart from the few honorable members of the Labour Party - Robin Cook comes to mind, who resigns in this government under any principled banner? or for a screw up? They are merely quitely shuffled off somewhere.

Collective reponsibility? don't make me laugh! Have the Government ever under Blair or Brown have claimed responsibility for any of the screw ups in their tenure?

The public would think more highly of them if they did.

However we are talking about a PM who has to watch videos of a President apologising to see how it is done.

They really make me sick.

Ok Nick, who's the touchy person who referred my last post?

Is Harperson herself reading these? Or does she have a minion to take out all the difficult bits?

Saw an interview with Gordon on TV this morning.

Gordon spoke so quietly we had to turn up the sound to hear him. Is he frightened?

One phrase that will be conspicuous by its absense:
"This global crisis started in America, so it's all their fault, not mine."

Oh come on 18 (niloc5959) say what you will about our dear Nick but he is never, ever bland. Are you Nick?

Quite the opposite I think. I think Nick is a really good guy and he is quite the fan, I believe of those amazingly talented rockers Lincoln City at anyoldfun (although I may have got that one the wrong way round).

Anyway hands off our Nick. Save the knuckle dusters for where they belong......with Gordon!

Just before anyone else mentions it, Don't even go on the line of free holidays.

Remember - Prescott wanted to be a Cowboy!

Indeed, the G word is out there with full force, again.

The economic problems are GLOBAL.

Yes, the WORLD, told to do so by the US:
-made UK banks sell 125% UK mortgages to UK customers (noticed those Northern not-so-solid-as-a-Rock arrears yesterday?);
-told the FSA to let UK banks become the weakest-capitalised banks in any large country by the end of 2006;
-made Brown run a budget deficit when the economy was growing above trend prior to economic clouds started appearing;
-made UK consumers spend all of their disposable income in 2005/6 when the UK savings rate was zero;
-manipulated the appointments to the monetary policy committee of the Bank of England for it to remain dovish in boom times when consumers where getting addicted to debt;
-forced Brown to pay out billions of benefits wrongly.

Clearly, Brown is not to blame for any of this, not even as part of a COLLECTIVE. He is merely a victim of circumstance, rather than one of the main creators of those circumstances.

PS Has the PM shown any humility on subletting his constituency office? Or is the COLLECTIVE also responible for this error of a seasoned, experienced MP?

How many times do you think Gordon will use his usual matra, "I believe," before diving into one of his distribes when addressing Congress ? Sadly he is one of the very few left in the UK who believes a word he says anymore or has any trust in that anything he does will actually work.

Tried to unpick his conversation to you, - " I think there's always a need for humility and there's always a need to accept collective responsibility and I don't think I would run away from responsibility for what happens. I'm just trying to explain to you what actually happened round the world."

I think even the Plain English Society would be unable to work this one out.

Nick, he is sticking to his line, "Ain`t nothing to do with me gov and if you think you are going to get me to admit to cocking up UK Plcs - think again, it`s not going to happen. No matter how many times you ask."

Nice one at embarassing him in front the President. Are you making your own way home?

I sure all those in congress who bother with a quick debriefing will be aware of how disdainfully received our Great Leaders views are in the UK.

They'll all be clock watching wandering when this plonker will jump on Brown Force 1 and head back to Blighty!

The whole thing is sycophantically cringeworthy and should be stopped. He represents nobody but himself.

@13 Badcourage,

Brown indeed has always resisted more or different financial sector regulation.

From his 2006 Mansion House speech:

"I believe that we were right not to go down that road which in the United States led to Sarbannes-Oxley, and we were right to build upon our light touch system ..."

"Let me say I see no case for a European single regulator and will continue to reject such a proposal, just as we will resist the new and unnecessary proposals to harmonisation corporate taxation in Europe."

Yes, and this was 2006, so Brown's claims that he has always argued for more regulation since the 1997/98 Asian currency crises is collectively untrue.

https://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/jun/22/politics.economicpolicy

I am so glad that SOMEONE is putting GB on the ropes, if only a bit mildly.

Tragic as David Cameron's loss has been, the cancelling of PMQs was a clever way for GB to avoid a drubbing before he set off.

Kennedy's "honour" is laughable.
At least Gerry Adams will refuse his when this lot offer it to him.

And about beefing up the IMF,

If only Brown has listened to the IMF rather than brushed there so-called findings aside.

The IMF has repeatedly pointed out that the UK was getting addicted to debt and that Brown's fiscal framework could prove less prudent and more pro-cyclical than anticipated.

(please keep in mind that the IMF uses diplomatic language when reading the quotes below)

IMF 2001 findings on the UK:

"Moreover, other developments (the high level of private debt, the prolonged rise in house prices), while possibly structural, might also be symptomatic of underlying imbalances. Such imbalances could increase uncertainty regarding the impact of policies and, if they reversed abruptly, could hinder macroeconomic performance."

"We do not see much room for raising the deficit above the path projected in the PBR. In particular, the PBR deficit path does not include certain measures that are yet to be decided or costed ..."

"... revenue prospects are uncertain: the buoyancy of tax receipts in the last few years is partly unexplained and, thus, the revenue shortfall this year may not prove as temporary as expected. Third, sizeable fiscal impulses are already envisaged in the period ahead and, while there are downside risks to the macroeconomic outlook, there are also upside risks (see below)."

"Over and above the issue of the appropriate size of the fiscal deficit, the policy debate has recently refocused on whether it would be appropriate to raise taxes to finance public spending beyond the amounts envisaged in the PBR outlook. Again, we would call for caution. Additional spending increases should be undertaken only if clear-cut economic justification can be found and in the context of reforms to raise spending efficiency. But, even in this case, the speed at which certain expenditure targets should be reached needs to be examined in light of the already rapid acceleration of spending envisaged in the PBR: primary spending is projected to rise by a cumulative 16 percent in real terms in the current and subsequent two fiscal years."

IMF 2004 findings:

"

Well done for going down that avenue Nick, although you were given an 'in' by Darling.
I see nothing resembling an apology here. Like the 10p Tax rate fiasco, he only ever said he was "suprised at the reaction of the country."

For your next trick why not try and get him to admit that ten years of economic growth Britain had was a "collective" effort and not his sole effort as he frequently liked to trumpet.

Good luck.

Oops clicked wrong button (stupid me)

But here are some of the IMF 2003 findings, and again keep the IMF diplomatic language use in mind:

-The main risk to this baseline relates to the effect that a sudden drop in house prices could have on consumption.

-While inflation is low, we see a case for pre-emptive, gradual tightening of monetary policy as signs of recovery are confirmed. This is reinforced by the ebullience of the housing market.

-The widening fiscal deficit does not raise sustainability problems, but a gradual strengthening is needed over time.

-The PBR sees a turnaround in the public finances even in the absence of policy actions. We see significant risks to these projections. On unchanged policies, we see only a small improvement over the forecast horizon, with the deficit about 1 percentage point of GDP above the government's projections by FY 2006/07.

-Our preferred mode for achieving fiscal adjustment is by moderating the growth of spending in areas where current plans involve sharp increases, with associated risk of inefficiencies. The expenditure policy framework has been strengthened, but it is not yet clear to what extent public spending is achieving the desired results with value for money.

Laughat..@23..

You are aware,of course,that Wikipedia is a collective Encylopaedia that grows by unmoderated additions from anyone who wishes to contribute to it..aren't you?

Remember poor old Titian?

And the final IMF quotes (more can easily be supplied) that show that the world does not really need a new financial warning system but responsible politicians and officials who act sensibly:

IMF in 2004:

"... resolution of the widely perceived overvaluation of house prices and its implications for private consumption are major uncertainties, with the balance of risks for both activity and inflation probably on the downside."

"Considerable uncertainty about the course of [tax] revenues over the medium term has heightened the debate about whether current policies will return the fiscal accounts to a sustainable position consistent with the government's fiscal rules. Should recent trends in the trade deficit not stabilize as we expect, implications for the valuation of sterling must be carefully monitored."

" The fiscal position deteriorated substantially in recent years, and questions are emerging about how and when the necessary correction will take place. Despite the recent history of optimistic revenue projections, the PBR projects that revenues relative to GDP will rise over the medium term to close to the peak ratio at the turn of the century, while expenditure growth will slow sharply after FY2005/06. If these projections are realized, the net borrowing requirement will fall to 1½ percent of GDP over the medium term-the level consistent with stabilizing net debt below 40 percent of GDP. Our central forecast, however, is for lower revenue growth, reflecting mainly slower real GDP growth in 2005 and a less pronounced rebound of corporation tax revenue over the medium term. On these projections, the net borrowing requirement will fall only to 2½ percent of GDP and measures to close the gap vis-à-vis the PBR forecast will be needed."

Laughatthetories wrote:
usual blame culture - if you want to know who to blame you might consult wikipedia:

Yes, the font of all knowledge - and one that is never wrong - well except when it is. The problem with wikipedia is that it is often inaccurate and uncomplete

The collapse of the US sub-prime market was the trigger event not the cause.

If a gambler borrows money and loses it on a horse and then keeps borrowing bigger sums of money to try and cover his losses until he can borrow no more - who is the cause of the problem? The gambler? Or the person who refuses to lend him the money?

The credit crunch happened because the banks are no longer willing to throw money around cheaply.

The US Sub-prime market did not force Northern Rock to offer 125% mortgages (these are mortgages where the second they are signed the buyer is in negative equity!). The US Sub-Prime market didn't force the UK government to create the FSA. The banks were able to borrow money far too easily and lend it out far too cheaply and nobody in the banking system or power seemed to no that eventually it would end.

Mr Robinson,

Another question to ask Brown on the flight back:

Re tax havens, will the UK sell or shut down the Channel Islands? An that inconvenience in the Irish sea?

Cheeriu,

PS The other question remains the one about the sublet constituency office (court of public opinion wants the rent!)

Now this article say it all:

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/alice_miles/article5841400.ece

Effectively newlabour and their apologists can kiss goodbye to Worcester woman if Alice Miles is anything to go by.

What has become breath taking for newlabour apologists as well as the rest of the population is that Gordon Brown just doesn;t seem to care about anything anymore.

He's always geting on with the job or suchlike. By all means get on with the job but kindly connest with the population and tell us how each of your policies is being executed.

At the moment we re in a blizzar f initiatives without the manner or means to deliver on them and we're told we're stupid if we don't reconnise their importance.

Not since Lucretia Borgia has there been such a blatant disregard for public opinion and yet that public nearly had its own show trial recently for the pension pot of Fred Goodwin. Make your minds up; are we important or aren't we?

Personally the downfall of Gordon Brown is now complete as he is looking increasingly like the bloke who just wouldn't do the decent thing. In this regard he shows himself incapable of governing the English for who above all else, the decent thing and doing it is paramount.

I see boilerpalte and the rest of the Downing Streeet Praetorian guard has yet to make it out of bed in Washington...

Call an election.

Who cares what Brown says ? He and his government are toast at the election. My main worry is what further damage they will do in the meantime, and the long hard slog ahead for the next generation or two paying for Labour's wasted decade.

Nick,

If Gordon isn't going to run away from his responsibilities - he is going to have to face up to these points I have unashamedly ripped off from someone posting on Guido's blog:


These are the IMF warnings which Brown was given:

1. Dec 2003 IMF gives Brown borrowing warning

2. Sep 2005 IMF report warning over 1 Trillion mountain of debt

3. Sep 2005 Brown besieged over growth and borrowing plans

4. Dec 2005 IMF fires new warning over Britain's finances

5. Sep 2006 IMF warns over possible UK property crash

6. Oct 2007 IMF report UK house market is 'heading for crash'

7. Apr 2008 IMF: UK vulnerable to US-style housing slump

This October, the IMF said that the UK was worst placed of all the major economies to weather the coming recession.



This was the some of the things Brown did and caused in response:

1. Sells gold at rock bottom right before bull market

2. Deliberately leaves out house prices in calculation of inflation, leading to artificially low interest rates thus spawning an unprecedented housing boom (which later crashes of course)

3. Spends entire national reserves, racks up record debt

4. Encourages local councils to save with Icelandic accounts which later go bust, purely based on high interest rates offered

5. Causes Run on pound against a basket of currencies, reaches below parity mark with Euro for high street exchange rates

6. Encourages people to keep on spending and borrowing to invigorate the economy despite the UK already having the highest levels of personal debt in Europe.

7. Recommends to Lloyds TSB (which has a reputation for being a slow and steady bank) acquisition of another bank which is subsequently shown to have losses of over 10 Billion and drags them both into the gutter.

8. Spent 12 Billion on a failed VAT Fiscal Stimulus


I doubt he'll find time to apologise for that lot in his speech to Congress - but at some point he is going to have to face the music.

Is Gordon a racist?

Nick - I saw brown say to obama, that while obama might beat him at basketball, obama might lose to him at tennis.

Where did the 'basketball' reference come from?

Surely Brown didn't say it just because obama is a tall black man - did he?

Can you tell us ?

ps. Credit where it is due -- good interview, showing browns squirming in full day light.

The only true words said were 25 seconds in where brown admitted that no regulatory system can remove all risk -- unfortunately his response is to (canute like) keep trying anyway, rather than accepting the truth, de-regulating, and limiting public exposure to the (necessary) risk -- exactly the opposite of 'baling out the banks'!!

From the outside looking in, the world of politics seems quite amazing sometimes, well, most of the time.

In my career, I have usually worked with small teams on projects.

Similar, I would imagine, to the number of Ministers that constitute 'the Cabinet'.

But that seems to be where the similarity ends because if I design a system that utterly fails when subjected to its first real stress test, I cannot turn around and say it is a 'collective responsibility' of the team.

Well, I could try but the response is guaranteed to be 'you're fired'.

That is the unforgiving world of the private sector.

Maybe we really should all demand Government jobs.

Well at least he will get his standing ovation for his speech to Congress as Sen. Kennedy has now been honoured with an honoury Knighthood... good timing this on the eve of the speech... who says Brown has lost it lol

has he now also shot himeself in the foot? what with this RBS and Goodwins pension fiasco by Brown saying it wasn't his fault that all this mess was on his watch... the world was... so in that case just as RBS buying ABN which was triple AAA rated cannot be Goodwins fault then either, yes? yet Brown says rewards for failure are not to be tolerated, which is it Mr Brown?

"I don't think I would run away from responsibility for what happens".

Maybe not, but that's not the same as '...responsibility for what happened' and that's the issue for Brown and always has been.

Matt Frei seems to have scooped you Nick

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/world_news_america/7922428.stm

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

The reason he wont apologise is because an admission of failure will mean doing the decent thing and going.

Fred went for growth, it was imaginary and wrecked the very thing he was charged with looking after.

He apolgised, went and then pocketed the dough. Mandy calls HIM indecent.

It was Gordon that designed the car without brakes.

What Brown may say to Congress is one thing but whether anyone will be bothered to listen to his 'carpe diem' speech is quite another.

An icy wind is blowing across the US political landscape with questions about Obama's policies while his popularity remains at an all-time high. 

But Brown has neither the luxury of popularity nor policies. 

Alice Miles over at The Times reckons he's "Humiliated, hopeless, paralysed. Time to go."

Brown just doesn't get it. And neither will Congress.

https://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/gordon-doesnt-get-it-neither-will.html

It really is nausiating to see GB fawning all over BO like he was in the Oval Office. It was so pathetic to see him try and play himself off as the popular kids new best friend infront of the media. Although it did make me laugh when GB kept using Barack, and Obama stuck with Mr Prime Minister all through the interview...slight deja vu of when Brown met Bush and he showed his distain by using Mr President even after Bush said "call me George"

What a loser.

This cartoon by Moreton Moorland from The Times sums it up perfectly!

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

45. At 11:08am on 04 Mar 2009, jonathan_cook wrote:

You forgot one thing, Bliar is as much to blame for this mess as Brown is.

I argued back in 2003 that people were spending beyond their means, credit card use was at record levels, Bliar, Brown and the B of E knew this but did nothing.

Now he runs to congress to try and save his political life.

The man and his government are finished.

They will walk off with their fat pensions and leave the Tories to pick up the pieces knowing full well they have destroyed our nationality, our economy and our freedom.

Harry selective memory
"Anyone remember David Mellor?

His crime: knocking off Antonia, he put his hands up and said, I've embarrised the government, I'm off. Major accepted his resignation."

Anyone remember Jonathan Aitken - went to jail, perjured himself and his daughter before he would admit to fiddling his expenses. "Sword of honesty etc"

Jeffrey Archer?

Tory collective responsibility, folks, bring it on..

RobinJD @ 43

I too read Alice Miles piece in the Times today and there was one point that had real value, which gave an explanation for something that has been puzzling this blogger for a while.

Miles points out that consumers are not responding to the various fiscal and monetary measures that the Government has put in place to stimule demand.

Miles says that in essence, the core reason for this is because the voters have lost trust in the Government and therefore they will not start to spend.

To bolster her point, Miles is totally ignoring the fear of unemployment, which must be a big driver in the current circumstances.

I have spent a lot of time living on the edge, in the sense that if I ever failed at my job over the past few decades, then it would have been curtains, in a very terminal way.

Therefore, I am pretty intolerant of failure and so I am quite prepared to watch this NL Government dig a deeper and deeper political grave for themselves over the next year.

Ultimately, I don't think NL as a political movement truly represented working people very effectively anyway, so what really was the point of them?

46

Get real. BO loves basketball, GB loves tennis. Both still play.



End of.

One can divide the Grabbers into Big Beasts and Hyenas. The Big Beasts taking the lion's share and the Hyenas snapping around and making off with the substantial leftovers. Thus, Fred Goodwin is a Great Best whilst Michael Grade is a Hyena. Where do the others fit in using this equation? Example: Jacqi Smith et al.

Could Gordon Brown perhaps explain why his government intends pumping public cash in to failing PFI projects. These were failing BEFORE the 'credit crunch' which is now being conveniently blamed for a multitude of sins!

Full marks for Brown, Mandy and Campbell,

With the Kennedy knighthood they have secured an ovation that will not score embarassing on the decibel meter!

I thought that Gordon Brown did look a bit nervous at the meeting with President Obama and, to be fair, all of his predecessors over the last few decades (since Suez) have probably felt the same, even if they managed to mask it.

Because, essentially, this is certainly not a meeting between political equals, however much 'British' politicians and diplomats pretend that it somehow is.

That is why the EU must have a President, wielding significant power because then we Europeans will be at a point where we have a theoretical 'equal' to the President of the United States.

I would suggest that is why President Obama refers to "his good friend Tony", as Mr. Blair is the most likely candidate.

Does'nt your political antennae tell you that?

Thats a shame I thought he was going to tell them the US is the source of the problem and it was nothing to do with Gordon Brown. Oh and that he had saved the world.

His "apology" for the 10p tax cut was one thing. It was something he put more or less right with a little more borrowing...(for that year).

Apologising for sowing the seeds of doom years and years ago would be an "I'll get my coat" moment.

Like Clinton.... deny deny deny....

OK, who referred 51?

Sue me if it isnt true.

Nip Across to PMQ's

While Gordon's out of the country his prospective replacment has been torn to shreds by Hague and Cable

#57 laughatthetories

If you want to go down that route, think about what happened to Dr. David Kelly.

Utterly appalling.

57 LAT

Aha! and there's the fish, they lost their jobs or went to jail.

Personnally I don't like Mellor, but that isn't the point Laugh is it? The point I am making is accountability! Your Government have no concept of it.

Mandleson for his crimes got a castle in NI.
then a plum job in the EU, THEN a peerage.

We had a Dept PM messing around and taking freebies and left when his lord and master retired.

We had a PM who had free holidays with Pop stars, and the great line from him this week. How appalled he was at the destruction.

You're quite right Tony, you should have seen Bagdad after you'd finished with it and 99,000 more people died in that balls up!.

Oh where do you stop?

Jackie Smith?

Jack Straw?

David Blunkett?

Margret Beckett?

Tessa Jowell?

Ken Livingston?

When I see one of these clowns bought to account you may have a point.

Bring it on indeed.

57#

Yeah, difference being though Laugh:

When they broke the law they were convicted and sent down and didnt return to parliament, didnt return to government.

What happened to Kieth Vaz?
What happened to Geoffrey Robinson?
What happened to Peter Mandelson?
What about the 4 Lords taking money for submitting amendments?

You telling me that isnt any worse than cash for questions and the Hamiltons?

What about Jackboots and her "allowances"?

What about Tessa Jowell? Her hubby paid off their mortgage with the proceeds of a bribe given by Berlusconi. He's been convicted for it - moderators, dont you dare take this out or I'll take this to the BBC Trust, I promise you - is the house going to be repossessed as it was bought with the proceeds of a crime?

John Prescott? Has a sexual relationship WITH AN EMPLOYEE, IN THE WORKPLACE -REPEATEDLY - for which anyone else would have been instantly dismissed for gross misconduct - YET he gets to keep his job, and EVEN when he loses his department, he got to KEEP THE GRACE AND FAVOUR houses and apartments AND the pension that went with the ministerial post EVEN THOUGH it was for at least 6 MONTHS before he left the government!!!!

And thats just the start of the stuff thats already in the public domain.

Laugh that lot off then mate, that is a huuuuuuge glass house you're chucking stones from.... :0-)

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

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

I've just watched Harriet Harrperson on PMQs. She's definitely up to something on the leadership front. After Sundays "Court of Public Opinion" escapade, and superbly aided by William Hague, her leadership bid is definitely gathering momentum.

She actually attempted to answer the questions, much better than the usual evasive drivel of Gordon Brown.

It looks like it's not only the US congress who appear to be "seizing the moment" with Gordon Brown in the US. I'll bet he can't wait to get back to the UK !

Makes you wonder why some American foundation gave him a "Statesman of the year" award, when he refuses to accept that the buck ultimately stops with him.

Hell if he was caught drowning kittens he'd probably blame the water for being wet.

The Brown-nosing has to stop when we get to the farcical situation of knighting Ted Kennedy.

A man who supported terrorism against this country.

A man who crashed his car and fled like a coward leaving a young girl to drown, and never faced punishment for "some strange reason"....nothing to do with his family name I'm sure.

A man whose father did not the US to enter WW2 to help the UK, whether it was due to hatred of the UK or love of the Nazis or both.

It is a disgrace, and does a great disservice to anyone else who has received this rewards.

Who is next? Osama bin Laden? Or perhaps a posthumous knighting for Adolf Hitler?

"I don't think I would run away from responsibility for what happens."

Does anyone else see the irony in him saying this when he is thousands of miles away from what happened?

I only hope that what ever Brown says to the Americans they will realise that he is not speaking for anyone else.

He has no mandate to do anything from the people, he was not even Deputy Prime Minister, and he is the one who has brought England to this finantial impass by spending every Pound in the good years and saving nothing.

Brown and his government, preceeded by Blair's, have systematicly raped this country along with the criminal EU.

Time for a change of government and before the idiot manages to complete the wreckage of our country.

As Gordon plotted to get Tony out of No. 10, so Harriet is plotting to Get Gordon out of No.10.

Oh what a tangled web we weave. When first we practice to deceive.

#57 Laughatthetories

For all the Conservative types you mention and others, all of whom quite rightly got exactly what they deserved, there are probably an equal number of Labour politicos on the make. The difference appears to be Jacqui Smith and her ilk walk away scot-free having ridden out the storm.
Cast your mind back not many weeks and the tawdry tale of the Honourable, (yeah right), Labour Lordships. People in glass houses are well advised not to hurl stones.

Gordon Brown saying: "I think there is always a need for humility and there's always a need to accept collective responsibility" can only be described as the PM trying to avoid personal responsibility - ie. avoid any responsibility . It's this avoidance of personal responsibility that has contributed so heavily to us getting into this mess in the first place . If Gordon Brown and co. had kept their eye on the job - instead of going off on the collectivism and team playing jaunt etc. - maybe we would be a lot better off than we are at the moment .

My post #72 merely highlighted the fact that Harriet Harman got in wrong at PMQs when she stated that Sir Fred Goodwin was awarded his knighthood for services to The Prince's Trust.

In fact, it was awarded for services to banking.

What is so contentious about that?

No email received by the way, yet again!

https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/57315/supplements/1

#72 I also pointed out that either she misled the HoC or she had a poor grasp of her brief!

Will Brown also be telling both houses that it is all America's fault like he's been telling the UK?

Oh dear Harriet

1320 It's official. Harriet Harman has admitted she got it wrong on Sir Fred's knighthood. Her office issued a statement shortly after PMQs saying she was "happy to correct" the record. "It was, in fact, the case that he received his honour for services to banking but no doubt his contribution to the Prince's Trust would also have been taken into account," it read.

BNP shot down after it uses a POLISH Spitfire to front its anti-immigration campaign.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1158970/BNP-shot-uses-POLISH-Spitfire-anti-immigration-campaign.html

===

Ooops!

I agree with the sentiments set out @70

At least you could say one side has prosecuted it's rogues

Maybe we have to wait for the incumbents to be booted out before the investigations will begin

I could add Prescott's assaulting a member of the public, albeit after he had an egg thrown at him...but his response was proportionate?

45. At 11:08am on 04 Mar 2009, jonathan_cook wrote:

"This was the some of the things Brown did and caused in response:

1. Sells gold at rock bottom right before bull market

2. Deliberately leaves out house prices in calculation of inflation, leading to artificially low interest rates thus spawning an unprecedented housing boom (which later crashes of course)

3. Spends entire national reserves, racks up record debt

4. Encourages local councils to save with Icelandic accounts which later go bust, purely based on high interest rates offered

5. Causes Run on pound against a basket of currencies, reaches below parity mark with Euro for high street exchange rates

6. Encourages people to keep on spending and borrowing to invigorate the economy despite the UK already having the highest levels of personal debt in Europe.

7. Recommends to Lloyds TSB (which has a reputation for being a slow and steady bank) acquisition of another bank which is subsequently shown to have losses of over 10 Billion and drags them both into the gutter.

8. Spent 12 Billion on a failed VAT Fiscal Stimulus "

**********************************

Somehow I don't think GB will ever be referred to as 'Prudence' Brown again!!!

Some of us never did believe the media hype re. his economic 'genius' (not since his raid on the pension funds) but never dreamt he would drag the country down to its current depths.

and where, pray are the newlabour apologists on this post today?

They are in Washington giving Grodn Brown a pep talk ahead of his speech to both houses which runs alng these lines:

Your visit is going down like a lead balloon back home

The UK has cottoned onto the fact that you were given a playtime slot with Obama.

Your failure to accept any blame for anything that has ever happened on your watch has played very badly abck home as your chancellor has apologised on your behalf.

THis is a make or break speech and you better stop this mumbling on about grand global bargains and new deals and say exactly what you have in mind.

More of the same is signing your own death warrant; you'll be lucky if they run a ladder up to your plane when it lands in the UK.

Call an election

"I think there's always a need for humility and there's always a need to accept collective responsibility and I don't think I would run away from responsibility for what happens. I'm just trying to explain to you what actually happened round the world."

Just what does this mean? There must be a resident physchologist or psychiatrist amongst the bloggers...

"I don't think I would run away from responsibility for what happens".

The implication is - what is currently happening or potential future issues.

There is nothing whatsoever to suggest any responsibility for any events that may have happened in the past.

Any expressed responsibility for the 10p tax-band fiasco? Any specific apology for creating a dysfunctional regulatory system for the Banks?

By the way, Nick. It may just be a personal dislike, but I really don't like "news" or reports that tell me what "someone will say". How do you know Brown will get to address Senate/Congress members? Suppose he has a heart attack? Or breaks his leg on the way to bask in the warm affection of a bunch of people who probably wonder how the Brits oscillated from a snake-oil salesman (at least they recognise the type!) to the man who broke the UK economy without any help from the USA...

And, by the way again, I presume that if government owned or controlled banks lend money to the PFI companies, the debt will eventually HAVE to be reflected as part of our national debt? At least that would be a proper reflection of the facts.

71#
Mods:

so what didnt you like or was inaccurate?

The implication that the PM's hand/eye/ball co-ordination skills might be not quite up to competition standards when it comes to Tennis?

Or the implication that the only racket he knows about is the one that is being run from 10 Downing St???

The Americans as a rule are friendly and polite. They will listen respectfully to what Gordon Brown has to say and possibly give him a standing ovation as a sign of respect because they are grateful for the fact that he has taken time out of his busy schedule to come and address them. His message of protectionism avoidance will however be taken with a pinch of salt. They all have constituents losing jobs, homes, relationships and self respect. 'Look after your own' will be the order of the day at least initially. If they have not heard Brown's blaming of The USA for starting the crisis they will be none the wiser as to where he is coming from and will afford him the leeway to make his points fairly. This will be a generally receptive audience. To believe that it is anything else than a cynical exercise on the part of Brown to enhance his approval ratings at home would be a contradiction of the truth. The hope that it will give him yet another bounce is ill founded.

I did not think Harriet Harperson had a good PMQs. Stuttering and evasive. There again she is probably itching to "stick the knife in" to GB - metaphorically of course. Now we find that she was telling porkies about the gong (sorry I mean making a mistake). Forgive me but I thought they were given the questions beforehand. Is this not the case?

Nick
I sometimes think that Brown is not fit to be let out alone.

First we have him on the plane with mum combing his hair and sorting out his spots.

Then he turns up at the White House with his trouser down his sock like he has arrived on a push bike.

https://www.order-order.com/2009/03/prize-competition-what-is-whitehouse.html

You just could not make it up

70. Fubar_Saunders

Agree with your comments. The Tories had some rubbish, but Nu Labour is afloat with garbage. No wonder they are so keen on recycling - it keeps coming back to haunt us!

Just to keep you in the loop while you are in Washington Nick, there was further bad news for our Gord at PMQs today.

Like Kevin Maquire and Andrew Neil I thought that Ms Harman came across as a natural leader in waiting and drew real blood from Hague with the revelation that he trousered £30,000 from two after dinner speaking engagements from the Royal Bank of Scotland.

The news that former chief cheer leader Kevin M has smelt the wind and is starting to distance himself from the PM is indeed bad news rather confirming my point that he will be gone by the summer. Asked to step aside by the Cabinet in a show of no confidence after the May elections.

Once you have lost Darling and The Mirror then there really is no place left for Gord to hide. His political obituary is being written over here even as I type. Me thinks that the press corps will have plenty to ponder over on the long flight home whatever collective girding of loins in spin and soundbite our favourite son of the manse comes out with before the joint house in Congress this afternoon.

And let us not have any more of this tragedian guff about what might have been for Gordon. He was very lucky indeed to get the top job even for a year or so. Very lucky indeed. In fact more lucky than you could possibly imagine.

Perhaps we should compile a list of what Gordon Brown will not be saying to Congress today:

I'll start:
In spite of the fact that you guys started this whole credit crisis ...................................................

Nick,

I do find it somewhat disingenuous to hear GB, when pressed on his responsibilities, say that ABN Amro was considered "in order" by Dutch Regulators implying that some reliance can be placed on that whilst he and his colleauges pillory Fred Goodwin for making a mistake. Was he not entitled to take any such reliance? Obviously not!

Nothing changes !! The cringeworthy performance of GB in the USA was particuarly unedifying and demonstrates once again his huge ego and self delusion - it seems that some of his cabinet chums are beginning to get the message -rats and sinking ships spring to mind !!
GB's surprise at the public outrage at the 10p tax debacle showed just how far he was removed from the electorate - but that big fat ego won't let him come down to earth and realise that continued blathering, delivered in that carefully modulated , elocution school style is simply alienating the voters who are looking for effective and transparent leadership, not the apparently condescending "you wouldn't really understand but just believe me when I say " type of non-answer which we can see coming from a mile away !

Off topic I know but this is the real 'Elephant in the room' I suspect...

The one thing he won't be telling Congress today is that his cabinet are starting to clear the way [see footnote] for a snap election around the beginning of June (same day as the UK votes for their EU MEPs), the dates stack up if one considers that Easter also interrupts the current parliamentary diary;

Beginning of April - G20 meeting/strutting

April - 10th to 13th April - Easter (MPs have a week or two off)

22nd April - Budget

7 days of Budget debate and vote

End of April - Possible dissolution of Parliament

5 weeks of possible election stumping

~ 7th June - EU elections (could be moved to fit into any Parliamentary election date)

[footnote]
Today they have railroaded all stages of a Northern Ireland Bill into just one day, even though there seems to have been cross-house agreement that there was no emergency, plenty of time and as yet the relevant NI assemble committee have not yet reported back on NI Policing

The same man that gave a knighthood to Sir Fred for services to Banking gives an knighthood the Kennedy for what?
Kennedy has never done anything beneficial for the UK, but then neither did Sir Fred.
Brown nose must be the only answer; can I see Pinocchio?