« Eric Pickles gears up to lovebomb the Liberal Democrats (again and again and again) | Main | George Osborne targets Labour's "endless announcements" as fears grow of recession worse than the 1980s »


Evan Davis did press Brown repeatedly (and of course unsuccessfully) to admit that we had had another 'boom and bust'. But he let Brown get away with constantly blaming all our difficulties on the 'global banking crisis' and never called him on the undeniable fact that Britain is in a much worse position than most other countries due to the enormous borrowing binge that inflated our multiple bubbles.

He was so focussed on getting Brown to admit that we had another 'boom and bust' - which no doubt would have been a good sound bite - that he didn't address the substance. Ridiculous.

Yes heard the same interview taking the kids to school this morning.

You could have taken any of his standard Tractor production replies from any interview over the last 3 months.

But I think now the only people shouting at the radio will be Labour spin Doctors, who if you can forget their past actions you might even begin to feel sorry for. All these performances do is confirm to the public that Brown as out of his depth and perhaps confused about what is going on. ( The Wilsonian event may perhaps be happening to him also ? Perhaps he can't understand any more ? )

Brown just would not answer the straight forward question even now being asked by his MPs as to how much taxpayers money is at risk.

PS I twice heard Evan Davis tell Brown he was right - in a desperate attempt to get him to move on. Further he made the somewhat dubious claim that as he hadn't seen the current crisis coming as a economics correspondent that he couldn't lecture Brown on it.

To be fair, Gordon is half right when he said he "abolished Boom and Bust"

He's abolished Boom.

Brown's mind is stuck in the past. It's like he never moved on from his deal with Tony Blair in that restaurant. When he attacks David Cameron, he is attacking the Conservative party that existed before New Labour came into power. He can't grasp the fact that David Cameron changed his party to attract BBC employees and Guardian readers. Brown just can't accept the reality that is going on around him. He's a longterm thinker that has little sense of the objectivity of the moment. Unfortunately for Great Britain, our Prime Minister is past his sell-by date.

Our twat of a Prime Minister is all too happy to take full credit for the financial boom of the last 10 years but now that the boom has turned to bust it's apparently a 'global problem'!

Does his persistant denial and inability to face the truth remind you of Mugabe`s "There is no cholera epidemic in Zimbabwe"? !!
On another issue I saw him in PMQs this week changing policy on the hoof leaving the rest of his cabinet trying to defend his actions. The man is seriously out of his depth and because of his powerful position is a liability to this country. The longer he remains in his office does not bode well for our country. Is there nothing we can do?
Liz Kemp

Brown has also stolen the Conservative policy for paying companies around £2,5000 to take on unemployed workers.

The Conservatives announced it in November, it was panned by Labour (Tony McNulty in particular) and now Gordon Brown has stolen it and pretended it was his idea all along.

man in a shed - I was equally amazed at Evan Davis' assertion that he hadn't seen the crisis coming.
many of us did; (experiemce tells us that almost everything is cyclical) but were repeatedly warned about "talking down the economy".

Evan Davies is an incompetent useless interviewer. Stuck in traffic this morning, so was forced to listen to his drivelling interview.

Who cares is Brown was wrong about Boom and Bust - it's such a nonsense question.

He completely missed the big ones. Brown said at one point "we've just agreed that the recession is caused by the global problems". Evan didn't even try to pull him up on this nonsense. Brown also said that this recession was caused by the banks when again this is nonsense. The recession was caused by overindebtedness. Evan also failed to take him to task on his pronouncement that this entirely started in the US. FFS!!!!! Need I go on. The man should be shot (fired - not killed).

On a separate note, the interview on Israel was like a prosecution. Not a shred of independence from the Beeb. The interviewer had his opinions and clearly made them felt. Not professional stuff. The Israeli representative was making very reasonable points - and the Beeb was already acting as judge and Jury.

Ultimately the blame for all this lies with the man elected First Lord of the Treasury, Anthony Blair, who not only promised to serve a full term (if elected) but from the start in 1997 abdicated his responsibility for the Treaury to the maniac Scottish Socialist. It is arguable that Labour might not have won the 2005 election if the prospect of the Brown Terror had been in the manifesto.

House of Commons - Treasury - Fifth Report [24 January 2008]

13. ............. The Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, was also supportive of the quality of the asset book of Northern Rock, telling us that:
"What I would say about Northern Rock (and this is the tragedy of Northern Rock) is that most of the staff that worked in Northern Rock on the lending side, all the evidence shows, did an excellent job in appraising the loans that they were making, and that they monitored very carefully and they did not lend money to people who should not be borrowing from them. The lending side was handled extremely well."


[Hansard] 24/1/2008 The Prime Minister: "The loans and bonds are secured against the assets of Northern Rock, which, as everyone understands, has a high-quality loan book. It is our intention to get the best deal for taxpayers: they will get their money back, and make a profit."

More from Hansard - Wednesday 26th November 2008, in a debate in the House of Lords, Lord Myners [Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury] said:


Gordon Brown accepts no responsibility for todays crisis, preferring to blame the Americans who he blamed for not forseeing what was likely to happen as a result of all the potentially poisonous debts.

But who was in charge over here during the same period and who failed to forsee similar events here? Er, was it Gordon Brown?

And who weakened regulation?

Not to mention instituting the "There-will-never-be-a-rainy-day" financial policy.

And gold sales and pensions theft?

Could all this be because he never had his eye on the ball as Chancellor but always had his eye on his main chance - to be PM?

And he still thinks he's the bee's knees!

I wonder how many more votes were lost today by that inept performance. Assuming that is that we ever get the chance to vote. Remember Brown doesnt like elections!- he prefers coronations. Brown is living in a parallel universe with his constant evasion and refusal to accept that this recession is down to him. The failure of Northern Rock wasnt caused by America

David Cameron gave a speech to DEMOS yesterday where he warned Britain faces a real risk of needing a humiliating 1970s-style bailout from the International Monetary Fund.

In his strongest remarks to date on the financial crisis, the Tory leader said if the Government continued on its present course, 'then money will run out'.

I recall we've been here once before under Jim Callaghan. Indeed like many others I lived through the 70's, which saw mass strikes and picketing on docks and ship yards, lorry drivers, nurses, council refuse collectors and even grave diggers where the dead could not be buried because of the Labour Government's policies which were not economically sound. In fact far from being sound, they were perilous and led this country into seeking a humiliating loan from the International Monetary Fund which brought with it, its conditions. "Conditionalities" as they are officially called.

Now once more, we're staring into an economic and political abyss which Brown's Borrowing will lead to topple Britain into if he's not stopped. Once he has no other choice but to go cap in hand to the IMF, then that will be the end of Britain because it will impose its conditionalities upon our nation. One of these conditionalities will be a requirement to fully engage with the European Union both monetarily, economically and politically, and thus we will be tumbling head first into globalisation with big government, big bureaucratic control, and another big lie yet again will have been foisted on to the British people without them agreeing to any of it.

Make no mistake. A loan from the IMF comes with a very high price. It must also be sanctioned by America, our partners within the IMF. It doesn't take a big grain of thought to see why for the last 40 years, Britain has developed along American lines with its economy and socially divisive privatisation policies. For these policies, conditionalities of the IMF, led us into the hubris and excessive debt laden country we have now which stands its people aside for the benefit of 'business', and made it impossible to retrench ourselves as an independent isle, a sovereign nation, and a real democracy, simply because they don't figure in the plan to dominate global politics and economics through the dastardly developing globalised policy programs which have led to the current global financial crisis.

David Cameron talks of "progressive conservatism", and reaching the same destination socially but by different means. He says we basically all want the same things, and he speaks to DEMOS the public funded political think tank which gave us Tony Blair and was once affiliated with Julia Middleton now head of Common Purpose and one time head of staff for John Prescott whilst he was Deputy PM at number 10 Downing Street.

Many are sick of this bum Brown and we need rid of him. He's the guy who removed the Bank of England's oversight from financial markets and British banks. We're also sick of his ideological Fabian dream which is set in its plan to trample our independence and to remove our ability to choose our future as a sovereign nation by inculcating the British people with its liberal aim to bring about revolutionary changes without revolution. Of course if Gordon Brown was not part of the Fabian Plan then he would call an election now for the country's sake in order for the British people to exercise their own choice on the way forward, but since his Fabian ideology comes first, then he doubtless won't, and we'll end up a ruined nation going cap in hand to the IMF, and we'll come to be an intractable 'partner' of the globalised world which combines the plans of America as manifested inside the European Union through globalised economics, globalised foreign policies, globalised politics and globalised laws which will create one big global heap of excrement underneath the banner of America's UNIPOLARISM.

I'd choose not to fall into the abyss with Brown or into the trap of unipolarism which by any other name is the New World Order and is the very essence of what the financial crisis is actually about in the first place.

People might want to remember this when they read Gordon Brown's reaction to David Cameron's speech, which was given this mornings as follows by the BBB, which is itself a contributor and employs many 'graduates' of Common Purpose.

Do you trust Gordon Brown ?

Brown's story goes like this:

The government will fight the recession with "every weapon at its disposal", Gordon Brown has said.

Speaking before figures showed the steepest quarterly fall in economic growth since 1980, Mr Brown said the recession was "different" to past ones.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme its length would depend on the effectiveness of GLOBAL co-operation.

Tim asks My question is whether Brown himself is so self-deluded that he believes his only lies or does he just think that we're all fools?

You're so wrong, Tim. It's not a question of 'or'. He thinks we are fools, and he is psychotically delusional.

Most people don't actually follow the detail of what is going on. So, the repetition of deluded statements by Brown and other leading spokesmen who will guarantee headline news and being reported in snippets which will get read means more electorally than the contradicting detail.

The claim of "do nothing" is more important in getting the electorate to form a view of the Conservatives than an analysis of whether in fact the "something" being done by Brown is a copy of Conservative proposals. The detail of the causes and potential fixes to the economic crisis are almost unspeakably dull and esoteric for most people - when Cameron called for loan guarantees, the response from ordinary people would have been rightly underwhelming because it takes longer than a 30 second segment on R1 Newsbeat to explain. However, when it is actually done by the people who currently actually have the power to implement it, it is more interesting because it is actual action.

At least that is the Mandelsonian calculation. It's all about winning the election, nothing to do with truth or honesty.

In short Tim, he thinks we're all fools. But I'm sure you already know this!

Brown's pathetic denials and obfuscations were cringe-making, it was Vicki Pollard-level. Evan Davis does not go for the jugular, I'm sure Labour will be lining up to be interviewed by him while the Tories get John Humphries.

Brown was Chancellor for 10 years, at the top table globally for all that time while others came and went only he was there, ours was the 4th largest economy. He was one of the key players in setting the rules and managing the global economy. It is essential he must take the blame for the bust, not just the boom, accept it and then we can move on. We cannot move on anywhere except downhill with the PM in such denial.

Very true, 'Rugfish': the demands of the IMF could indeed place the most impossible demands on us if we go crawling to them for a loan. (Remember what happened to Poland and Russia after *their* IMF loans.) Well, I say 'we', but as ever the general population has no say in the matter. And the majority of them have wised up to the points made above; they know Brown's full of it. Hence the resurgence in Conservative popularity over the past month or so.
There is something else important at stake which seems to be overlooked consistently: honesty. Our politicians (on both sides of the narrow divide) have been coached so assiduously by PR agents on ways in which they can fix a message permanently in the electorate's mind that they repeat the same message, the same speech, over and over again. Now even George W., for all his many glaring faults, actually spoke without an internal autocue. Our 'leaders' are setting the most appalling example to our children through their inability to speak plainly and truthfully. Why should we expect them to answer the question if the Prime Minister refuses to do so? Why should we attempt to instill in them moral values if their prime example is one of deceit?
If we're going to rebuild a broken Britain we need to be addressing not just the financial, but the social implications of Brownianism.

If you believe that stating a fact, for example, 'the current recession started in the US', is 'anti-American', you have entirely lost touch with reality.

Brown is in denial. Wikipedia:



Brown to a T.

Agree with most of the comments above.

No surprise Brown is suffering from delusions. We knew he was very sick when he declared he’d ended boom and bust. As Richard Littlejohn notes, Brown's current delusional state causes him to keep parroting ‘Began in America’ ‘Do whatever is necessary’ ‘Do nothing Tories’ ‘Send for the Nurse’

Naturally the BBC struggles with an economic concept which requires income to be generated before it’s spent, so it’s perhaps not surprising that Evan Davis didn’t foresee an end to endless spending of other peoples’ money.

Listening to this interview was like watching vomit trickle down a wall. The guy conducting the interview just allowed Brown to go into hyperdrive spouting absolute drivel at high speed so that he couldn't be interruppted or held to account.
The country is amoungst a whole host of problems made worse by the most ignorant PM in history is suffering from a total lack of confidence and will only have a chance of recovering once the likes of Brown and his Labour cronnies are consigned to the dustbin of History.
There is no confidence in the man from any quarter he lies constantly so that no one beleives a word he says and his continual mantras putting blame everyone but himself. I am sure that the root of a significant amount of the problems lie squarely at his front door and if they don't he has made them worse. Only when he is gone rather like Bush can there be any hope of recovery.

Evan Davis is certainly no match for Brown when the latter goes into hysterical econobabble mode, as he did on the Today programme. It might have helped if Davis had been more forceful in interrupting the torrent of self justification that issued from our Labour ex chancellor, but no amount of bluster and obsfucation can detract from Brown's own part in the current fiasco. Apart from all this, to try and implicate David Cameron in the cause for the disatrous fall of the pound was outrageous. When we have to go cap in hand to the IMF it will be Brown and his cohorts who will be responsible for repeating history.

re: Posted by: ACT | January 23, 2009 at 10:46

Actually it was Browns demolition of regulation here that stoked the market over there. Where do you think the wholesale funding of derelict loans was coming from.
Culpability Brown: The Credit Card Chancellor and now the Ditherer of Downing Street


Posted by: Graeme Archer | January 23, 2009 at 10:19 "

I have long thought Brown to be more than just a little mentally odd. Met him once and talked to him. He was VERY odd.
"Psychotic" certainly springs to mind .

As in mild penetrance/high functioning Aspergers disorder spectrum.

High functioning autism (HFA) is another possibility. They can often be very successful people. In a way.

Have any Labourites tried to defend Brown's behaviour anywhere?

New Labour was built on lies, lies and more lies.

With the financial turmoil the lies and liars are more brazen and obvious.

Blair told the shallow lies of the snake oil salesman. Brown is a criminal liar - he knows the extent of his own dishonesty.

@Bexie "Culpability Brown: The Credit Card Chancellor and now the Ditherer of Downing Street"

I like it - very good!

Brown is in complete denial. Sounds like a long forgotten former Labour PM, Callaghan, who presided over the 'winter of discontent' saying, "Crisis, what crisis?"

I think is is time for the men in white coats to call and collect him.

Intoneth Tim elsewhere: "Does the ideology of the Left make some of their supporters more hateful towards the Right than we are to them - or are we just as bad? I hope it's only twelve months before we can display generosity in victory." Well golly how delightful the 'right' is, on the basis of this and so many other ConHome threads:

Our twat of a Prime Minister
Posted by: Ray | January 23, 2009 at 09:44

Posted by: liz kemp | January 23, 2009 at 09:49

It's not a question of 'or'. [Brown] thinks we are fools, and he is psychotically delusional.

"Psychotic" certainly springs to mind .
As in mild penetrance/high functioning Aspergers disorder spectrum.
Posted by: Jake | January 23, 2009 at 11:14

Why doesn't David Cameron ask much more relevant questions of Gordon Brown? D.C. goes on about Boom and Bust, that question became irrelevant when the banks failed. Why does'nt D.C.mention that our country is worse that so many other countries, why does he let Gordon Brown get away with this "Global" word all the time.? I really feel that Mr. Cameron could be more aggresive ( without being rude!) and to pull Gordon Brown up about the gold etc. and When Gordon Brown mentions that the Tories are the 'do nothing Party' David should say "we will do something when we are in Government". Tell Mr. Brown that the Labour Party should be governing not relying on the Conservative
Party to give him all the ideas!

Your comments on ConHome threads certainly put you at the head of the nasty league table, ACT.

Well of course they do Tim. Disagreeing with you and 'Red Toryism' automatically makes one just the nastiest cove you could hope to meet. Much, much more unpleasant indeed than someone who casually compares a democratically elected (and governing) Prime Minister to, say, a murderous tyrant like Mugabe. Good sense of proportion there Tim. But yeah, take leader loyalty and blind partisanship where you will. Thus far on this thread, its taken people to calling the Prime Minister, 'psychotically delusional', 'mentally odd', and autistic. That sort of stuff was boring and unconvincing when the Soviets used to pretend that their enemies were mentally ill. It's little more impressive when bores on the internet shriek the same catcalls. Each to their own, and on these threads Tim, you've demonstrably found yours.

Brown is in denial and hoping the stupid voters fall for it once again.

Did Hitler blame himself in 1945? No it was incompetent Generals and uncommitted troops.

Does Mugabe accept responsibility for what has happened to Zimbabwe? No that's the British & American colonial powers.

Well people of Britain, you have plenty of evidence now.

Really, it took thirty five comments before a ConHomer reminded us that Brown=Hitler?

'the USA is responsible for Britain's recession'

On Newsnight lastnight Peter Lilley asked a question that bears repeating: (not verbatim) If (Bush's) America had such an appallingly managed (irresponsible etc)economy, why did Brown laud Alan Greenspan from the rooftops and recommend him for an honorary knighthood?
It is a devastating question. Which I wish I had heard George Osbourne ask first.

Anyone else noticed how much we owe the current mess to the Scots?

Scottish banks bankrolled by the English, A not flash Scottish prime minister, a hapless scott chancellor...

As for the celtic tiger and demands for independence..

It dismays me that the Labour party members are so weak and ineffectual that there is no-one within in the PLP that has the intelligence, nous and courage to challenge this very large sulky man, who believes the job is his as a right.

There is no bottom to the financial markets until confidence and optimism return. To that end I hope that the election of Obama will bring optimism and confidence back into play, because without those, the financial situation is going to deteriorate. One thing is for sure though, Gordon Brown is not the man on this side of the water to cause that optimism. He is enjoying being the man of the moment wallowing in all of this mire that he has created. We need to get Cameron and the conservatives in to power to see the return of confidence and optimism.

Do you know, I really loathe Gordon Brown. He has really fouled up Britain with his strange tinkerings and concentration on tiny details, missing the big picture completely. He is the personification of so many things related to poor government and the rantings of the left. Time to go Gordon.

At the next PMQs, Mr Cameron should ask about Mr Brown's current medical status. Is he taking drugs, and if so, what and why? Is he taking counselling, and if so, what for? Has he been advised by any of his medical staff about the effects of stress? etc.

The Radio 4 interview today was just so truly weird.

ACT some fair comment.

But how would explain Brown's behaviour at PMQ's and at press conferences. Yes he is the PM and he is doing his best. But what is there about him that explains his inability to tell it like it is? Why does he treat us like idiots? Why does he think it necessary to be a habitual liar? His behaviour is insulting.

A question for ACT: can you honestly say, hand on heart, that you think Mr Brown is a mentally healthy, well-adjusted person? I think you should honestly consider the possibility that he has genuine emotional/psychological issues. After all, how long has he been in Downing St one way or another? The concentration of effectively untrammelled power in Downing Sts (10 & 11) reveals character over time, and any flaws develop into cracks etc etc. Happens to the best of them. So go on, tell us you think he's clear-eyed sane.

A.Headhunter @ 10.05, Tony Blair was humself on an ego-trip after he was selected leader of the Labour Party, and he would have used anybody to further his plans. He was also more than ably assisted on his ego-trip by his egotistical wife!
Brown was the perfect dumb waiter!!

I absolutely agree with Angel Basu @ 10.26 - I, myself have said over and over for months, that EVERYTHING, is about winning the next election, EVERYTHING. The problems of job losses will only be addressed in a way to enhance labour votes! Brown and Mandelson have NO thought for how the public may be suffering - unless they promise to vote Labour!

I would agree with Jake @ 11.14

Bexie @ 11.08 - 'Culpability Brown: The Credit Card Chancellor and now the Ditherer of Downing Street.' Brilliant! It should be used on a poster!

It mustn't be forgotten that Brown was apparently raised to believe that he was extra special, and if apocryphal stories are to be believed, he declared around the age of six, that he wanted to be Prime Minister. If that was the case, and if this aim was in any way encouraged - by doting family - it would also have encouraged an inner conviction of destiny, that would NOT have included any awareness of personal accountability, OR how to cope with failure AT ANY LEVEL!. When you are very young you have to learn how to cope with failure, and HOW well you learn to cope with it, determines how well you cope with other aspects of your life.

Obviously Mr. Brown had to cope with the loss of an eye, which must have been difficult, and I am sure that his family helped with that, but in the much more public arena of politics, he has to find the strength of character within himself... The only alternative is to 'run away' from a situation, or to deny ones actions/statements. Many immature people do that!!

Here's the truth and some of you ain't going to like it.

The current meltdown all goes back to 1986, when Mrs T over here and Reagan/Greenspan in the US, deregulated the financial markets. Went 'light touch'.

Mrs T also put much of our manufacturing base to the sword - in sorting the Unions (mostly in Nationalised Industries such as BL and Coal Board) she threw the baby out with the bath water.

Don't add value just flip it for a quick profit. Increasingly complex financial 'products'. End justifies the means?

Then we had the Lawson Boom/Bust. Major's ERM fiasco (Lamont took the blame but inherited the ERM and actually took most of the tough decisions on which Ken Clarke's Golden Legacy was built on).

Then we come to New Labour. Whom I voted for in 1997, because they said they would rebuild the manufacturing base. Guess what? They lied.

And actually did even more damage to our manufacturers - we lost many in the early '80's & early '90's but that was during recessions. Labour slaughtered more of them in a Boom!

So here we are.

Now let me quote from Jim Rogers the Investment Guru and co-founder of the Quantum Fund with George Soros
"The pound is a currency with no underpinning and should fall against the dollar and the euro. He says his view reflects the UK’s dire economic situation: “It’s simple, the UK has nothing to sell.” In short he says, North Sea Oil is running out and the City is finished.

So who removed the BoE supervisory role of Banking Sector? Created useless FSA (from light touch to soft touch regulation)? Removed Pension Tax relief (more cash into property)? Pump primed a growing economy? Removed soaring house prices from inflation figures and thus kept interest rates too low for too long?
And courtesy of his Public Sector obsession we have 1 million extra on the payroll/pension figures.

All the doings of Mr Brown. (Mr Blair chipped in with a few unnecessary wars we can't afford).

So now, we have very little manufacturing left. Oil is running out. Banks/City are scuppered. As Jim Rogers says - nothing to sell.

We also have the Public Sector, Quangos, Labour's own BBC and all the consequent pension commitments to fund. We'll soon move from 2 to 3 million unemployed ie less tax payers and more having to claim Welfare payments.

It's like 1979 again but without 20 years of Oil and the City.

Yes, we're in the Brown stuff!

"No return to boom and bust" was always going to be a hostage to fortune, and was a little hubristic.

There's no doubt, comparing Britain with the other G7 nations, that over the ten years to 1997 our growth and economic inactivity figures have been consistent and outstandingly good - so it's fair to say Brown's economic performance contributed to Britain's success. As for "bust" it will depend on how we do compared with other nations in the current world downturn. Darling has already confirmed that one of the reasons we did so well is because London is a world financial center, and as such, is more deeply affected by a financial crisis.

As a social democrat, I would rather we had built a mixed economy with very high productivity; instead Brown and Blair continued with more right-wing policies originated under the Tories. So, our over-dependence on the deregulated financial sector may lead to a worse downturn than other nations. I don't yet know; but certainly a Tory government isn't the solution, no matter how inevitable.

As to politicians not correcting themselves; if you agree with them they are tough and strong; if you don't they are "delusional".

So, with the Poll Tax, did Thatcher think we were fools or was she deluded?

"Anyone else noticed how much we owe the current mess to the Scots?"
AndrewK 23 Jan 12.14
Yes, we've noticed up here in Scotland! We're stuck with G.Brown in Westminster and A.Salmond in Holyrood. (At least you're spared the second one). Its enough to make you imagine you're living in some kind of delusional world and there is no escape.

Thanks to Conand for his post. So good I'm going to repeat it:

Re: Brown blaming 'the USA for Britain's recession'


I think Brown pays Greenspan as an economic adviser. It's a cracker!!!!

Patsy Sergeant | January 23, 2009 at 12:30

I have my moments

resident leftie | January 23, 2009 at 12:42

The community charge to give its correct name was an attempt to correct the grossly unfair rates system. Any tax system that relies on a small section of society - in the rates case on the householder - without giving the opportunity to affect the rate at which it is levied, is unfair.

This is also the case with the BBC licence fee... also a poll tax

A person who reads from a written speech which has been prepared in conjunction and co-operation with others, may well agree with its content but is rather inclined to be disbelieved by an audience which can immediately see that the speaker has not formed the words himself and are therefore left in doubt as to its veracity and honest purpose.

Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, Adolf Hitler, Barrack Obama, and Jack Kennedy, Enoch Powell, and many more "Good Orators", spoke from the heart ( right and wrong ), because they meant it and the audiences they commanded KNEW IMMEDIATELY that they were exposing their own beliefs.

Audiences were enthralled by these and other speakers who were able to deliver speeches from the heart about their fundamental aims.

If I left anyone out I apologize.



ACT, your nastiness isn't due to your views (some of which I think I have agreed with) but because in almost every single post of yours I've ever read you come across as a humourless moaning miserable b****** who seems to be constantly angry with everyone and everything.

Tim, if you think I'm being unfair please feel free to delete this comment.

What is Browns option?

If he wasn't so deluded, if he admited the slightest bit of truth and honesty about the position he has brought the UK to, if he let the slightest inkling of this to enter his mind - he would have a complete break down - how could it be otherwise?

Whatever his original intentions he has been one of the worst things that has happened to this country - how could anyone live with admitting that to themselves?

In truth the UK doesn't have much that can't be emulated elsewhere in the world - we have no unique claim to technology, research, or anything else to bring us extraordinary wealth in the future.

Our heritage, oportunities and naitonal wealth have been squandered - our children (at least those not from wealthy families) will be starting from close to year zero - in direct (and level) competition with the chinese, indians et al.

The cabinet must take the bulk of the responsiblity - because they are the only ones who can do anything about it before the next election.

Is Brown deluded? I don't know. However, I do not think he can change course.

Just step back a second and think. Can you name another politician whose reputation is so totally dependent on a single issue?

Brown's political position is solely dependent on his (quickly fading) economic prowess. To admit he has no answers and that his previous boasts were no more than empty rhetoric would put at question his further political existence.

Whatever else Brown cannot afford to admit he has failed, whether he has, as I believe, or not. It would be his very own version of political suicide.

So he will carry on making his ludicrous claims and all the time damaging both his own and the Labour Party's credibility.

The big question to me is whether the Labour party has the courage and foresight to cut him down before he takes them all they way to the political hinterlands with him?

I must admit that I was perturbed when Tony Blair was PM and announced that the UK was a service oriented economy. The problem with a service economy is that you just shuffle money from one to another - there is no new money. The ecomomy was booming so where was the money coming from ? I didn't know and still don't but the money has now disappeared. There is no longer enough money to run our 'service' economy so people will go without!
The government tax revenue is dropping as redundancies take their toll so they must take severe measures to balance the books by cutting government spending.
Stop the wars, get out of the EU, stop funding economic immigrants (those on benefits) and we could save up to 200 Billion pounds a year. That would really help balance the books again

A question for ACT
I thought Mugabe had been democratically elected by the people of Zimbabwe. Prime Minister Brown was not elected by the British people. Also no comparison was made between the Mugabe`s "murder of his people" only the comparison of the "denials"
liz kemp


It is not just Wilson and Callaghan - Attlees's government should not be over-looked, the following quotes are from Wikipedia:

...strict rationing of food and other essential goods were continued in the post war period, to force a reduction in consumption in an effort to limit imports, boost exports and stabilise the Pound Sterling so that Britain could trade its way out of its crisis.

1947 proved to be a particularly difficult year for the government; an exceptionally cold winter that year caused coal mines to freeze and cease production, creating widespread power cuts and food shortages. The crisis led to an unsuccessful plot by Hugh Dalton to replace Attlee as Prime Minister with Ernest Bevin. Later that year Stafford Cripps tried to persuade Attlee to stand aside for Bevin. However these plots petered out after Bevin refused to co-operate.[1] Later that year, Hugh Dalton resigned as Chancellor after inadvertently leaking details of the budget to a journalist, he was replaced by Cripps.

.....However another balance of payments crisis in 1949 forced Chancellor of the Exchequer Stafford Cripps into devaluation of the pound.

I assume the question we are addressing here should be ...does Gordon Brown ... believe his own lies (not only)or does he just think we are all fools.

Brown is delusional AND takes all others for fools (given the parliamentary opposition) he is probably correct in the latter judgement in so far as MP are concerned.

Can he survive a call for the IMF that is up to Labour, the plot against Attlee mentioned in the quote above does not seem to set a good precedent!

But is Cameron plotting a "progressive" sell out as I queried in my blog of earlier today - if not, then why praise Milburn?

Has anoyone thought about using "Gordon is a moron" by Jilted John, it would go down well at a Tory dance I suspect.

Yes! I think he really believes it. Frightening, isn't it?

I really don't know why DC doesn't give Brown a really good (but gentlemanly) kicking; reminding The Speaker that Brown is supposed to answer questions put forward at PMQs - not to answer different ones. He's got all the ammunition he could want - and if not a look at these and similar comments elsewhere, could give him a clue.
As to the charge that the Tories are the "do nothing party" Brown should be reminded that the Tories haven't got an alternative Treasury or their own BoE tucked away. They need to get into office first; and please Mr B, give them the chance.
Concerning whether the current economic position could have been foreseen, well, I'm just an ordinary man-in-the-street and I took what defensive actions I could in the early summer of '07 because it was clear to me - just from reading the financial/ political/ economics columns - that there would be this kind of outcome, though I could not have predicted timing.
The Blair/Brown axis has trashed Britain socially, culturally, economically and intellectually - but then, perhaps, that was the intention

"Why doesn't David Cameron ask much more relevant questions of Gordon Brown?"

Good question, Brockway at 11.39.

E.g. would the PM agree:

* that it was not America that caused the biggest boom and bust in the housing market?
* that the excessive lending in Britain, which exceeded that of America, was a British made problem?
* that the failures in regulation were as great as those in America?
* that it was a combination of those mistakes - and not sub-prime mortgage lending - that brought down Northern Rock, then Bradford and Bingley and finally HBOS?

(all from Peter Lilley reported on ConHome on 27 Novemebr last).

The model that the PM copied when saving the world was based on Sweden's solution to its very similar problem (the collapse of the house price bubble) in 1991/92.

However, the Swedish thought things through and produced a coherent rescue strategy that worked at an estimated net cost eventually of about 2 per cent of GDP.

What are the essential differences in their plan - that led to success - and the Brown/Darling plan that has so far been a costly failure?

(James Kirkup on the Telegraph website 16 January 2009)

Listening to Brown's interview by Evan Davis on Today this am. I got an unmistakeable sense that brown was on the edge of a mental collapse - he sounded as if he were panicking, gabbling without any self-control. Time for his own party to remove him if they have any sense of responsibility or decency.

Fraser Nelson has a must-read post on Brown's Today programme interview.

We should ignore ACTs trolling. The mental health of GB is a serious issue. Is he in fact, in his continuing mental state of denial, really fit enough to lead the country out of the mess he has, in substantial measure, been responsible for causing? He is very typical of a particular kind of Scot. The Scots have been incompetent with money since the Darien scheme (look it up) which is why they worry about it so much. My very personal view is that Brown is quite quite ill and ridden with emotions of shame and feelings of personal guilt. His sanity is certainly at risk. He has, even NOW, apparently not appreciated the size of the hole he has dug for the nation. Northern Rock was a British problem. British funds lent to British borrowers by British Bankers under a system of banking supervison, run by Brits and devised by Brown. It was more than a four minute warning yet Brown failed to understand it. Is it any wonder he is in a psychological mess with the Dark Lord running him on puppet strings? Brown needs to resign now. In all likelyhood the pound would stablise to some extent if Brown went and NuLabour admitted his mistakes. In a curious way Mandelson would be better as temporary PM until an election. Having been away from the scene of the crime and being relativeley sane and better connected in the world and the EU than Brown, he could do a better job. Do not be shocked, think about it. Men in grey suits need to call on number 10. It would do no harm if they carried a straightjacket.


I fail to see how. And also how that would work democratically.

Yes, Conservatives are nicer as we are concerned for his sanity - If he resigned then he could get better, we wouldn't mind what he did after he was no longer in control.
If the roles were reversed I'm sure the left would just denouce him as mentally unstable and then have the desire to dance on his grave long after he had any control over their lives.

I do think it's both; he only slightly realises the mess he's made/making and so is trying to treat people like fools to cover it up and so treating them like bigger fools than he thinks he is.

Mike Spilligan @ 15.58 - 'The Blair/Brown axis has trashed Britain socially, culturally, economically and intellectually - but then, perhaps that was the intention!'

I don't think it was the intention, because as inexperienced socialist politicians, most of them covorted around as in the junior schoolyard, playing a marvellous - exciting game (for them individually), of 'look at me I am an MP, and I am in charge of this Ministry'. And they all shifted around - it seemed even more often than is usually the case, playing musical chairs with the various ministries (and probably creating havoc at times!!), and throwing their weight around - they seem very good at that!! There are just three things that they have instituted which have had the greatest affect on this country - until the current fiasco. A greatly enlarged public sector, with expensive and wasteful quangos and agencies; the largest benefit class ever; and a total obssession with filling forms (of course it existed in the past, but not to same extent - OTHERWISE - sure as eggs are eggs we have been told about it by Labour in opposition!!). Thats a great list to be remembered for!!!!!

Just watched a guy on BBC 24 ( sorry it went too fast to get his name ), saying that the last 11 years of Brown's reforms in the financial world will have to be "undone".....lololol

I think the BBC must be catching on.

Maybe we'll start to see the old BBC test card again with that little girl on the front who was eminently more interesting to watch than the British Broadcasting Corporation has been these last 11 years.

Please may I just remind everyone, whatever party they support, what needs to be done yesterday, if not sooner?
1. Vast reduction in the bloated state expenditure.
2. Vast reduction in the almost 50% taxation which stops people spending money in the shops.
3. An election so that the people can choose whether or not to go into debt.
4. Unloading the banks' saleable bits ASAP. banks deal in trillions of pounds: the poor old government only has billions and millions on offer.

Tim, thanks for the link at 16.11 to Fraser's article. Brilliant.

I think he simply believes that a large enough proportion of the public are sufficiently stupid to allow him to get away with his incompetence.

Have to say that his antics in that interview amused me and my wife as I drove her to work. It reminded me of the Michael Howard (Derek Lewis) interview with Paxo. That damaged Michael and this morning damaged Brown still further.

Bexie: January 23 2009 at 12.59

The community charge had its name adulterated to poll tax by those unwilling to pay their fair share in community costs. It was by far the most even handed way of achieving local revenue but it failed because millions who had never paid a penny piece before were suddenly faced with reality. "Can't pay, won't pay" they cried so the Government was forced to revert to the old system whilst the "resident leftie" of 23rd January 2009 at 12.42 got away Scott free.
Poor creature.

Brown kept repeating "ten years of growth".

This was a plain lie and designed to create the impression that before the "ten years" there must not have been growth, ie. under those evil nasty Tories.

This is classic Mandelson/Campbell trick. Repeat ad nauseum something which is not true and defy reporters to challenge you on it. Davies was typically supine and didn't challenge him on this, nor on the £200bn of borrowing Brown ran up between 2001 and 2008, before all the bungs and bail outs even started.

I believe Brown, like most people who have been in power for too long, has lost touch with reality and cannot see what is happening around him. I don't believe he is mad or bad, but he just parrots political soundbites and expects us to swallow.

People are not stupid, most of them know why we are where we are, i admit some don't have a clue whats going on and do blame the rest of the world. The saving grace is the vast majority know who got us into this and will vote accordingly when the time comes.

Butcombe Man.

You suggest that Gordon Brown may be mentally unwell? Well let's have a think...

1. Alastair Campbell accused him of being psychologically flawed years ago.
2. The feuds against Milburn, Mandelson, Jonathan Powell and of course Blair himself.
3. That he assaulted Frank Field screaming "I thought you were my friend!" For disagreeing with him.
This was to people on his own side!
4. We also know that he is prone to fits of rage - hurling cell phones against the wall etc.

Not the behaviour of a well balanced world leader is it?

Then he promised that he had 'abolished Boom & Bust'. More recently he claimed to have 'saved the world'. And he clearly BELIEVED his ridiculous boasts.

Does this suggest delusional tendencies?

Or what about the Global Economic Meltdown which "started in the US and wrecked the robust British economy" the one that he had built.

A man in denial?

We are left with only two alternative conclusions:

1. He is breathtakingly ignorant, incompetent, arrogant and hubristic

2. He is mentally unwell and should be Sectioned

Either way, what does it say about the Cabinet? Or the Parliamentary Labour Party?

01 February 2006
Dr Greenspan to become honorary adviser to Chancellor Gordon Brown

The Treasury today announces that Dr Alan Greenspan KBE has agreed to be Honorary Adviser to the Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown.

Dr Greenspan will advise the Chancellor on issues relating to global economic change.

Gordon Brown said:

“I am delighted that Dr Greenspan has agreed to be Honorary Adviser. His advice on issues relating to global economic change will be much appreciated.”

Mr Brown has spoken of Dr Greenspan as “not only one of the world’s most outstanding economic policymakers but the greatest economist of his generation” (The Times, Saturday 29 January).



Posted by: B.Garvie | January 23, 2009 at 11:32"

To be comparatively fair to the late Lord Callaghan, see the Centre Right debate that started on Wednesday morning.

Brown IS very odd. I don't know why some of the contributors think that it should not be stated. I for one cannot concentrate on anything he says, I am just waiting for that peculiar gulpy intake of breath it is so distracting. As regards answering questions perhaps if PMQs were to be called PM's Answers he might cotton on to what is supposed to happen.

The Fraser Nelson article was very good (thanks for the link) and revealing. Revealing in the sense that it's now abundantly clear that dislodging the political limpet (mine) that is this Brown individual is going to be a lot more difficult than I'd thought. I think this guy really is capable of suspending the next General Election and justifying it to himself (forget the electorate) for his familiar reasons.

It's also revealing in how a strategy for communicating just how unsuitable for "his" job this man is might be formed. It must be personal. Not personal attacks - I'm no stranger to them but history (recent history!) demonstrates they don't work with demagogues, however justified. It just makes them cling on harder. It must be about motives. Why did he become Prime Minister? What were his motives? Doesn't he think that he should be more collegiate? Whom does he rely upon in his inner circle (who's his 'Willie')? Is he frightened of elections? If so, why? Shouldn't he trust the people to support him if he his self-belief is genuine? That kind of thing.

And while that kind of thing resonates as much as the economic incompetence charges with us political hobbyists, it resonates a hell of a lot more with those millions of normal folk with better things to do. Thatcher was killed not by the "Poll Tax", but by the relentless, long-term hate-campaign against her from the left which created a hateful myth about her that persists to some extent to this day. The comparison is valid insofar as it was personality, not policy, that led to her downfall. The party ditched her because they thought she had become an electoral liability. In her case it was probably unjustified. In Brown's case, it is totally justified, in the sense that he must be shown to be the unutterable liability he is to the general public. His party is in his pocket. It's not relevant.

Therefore, the difference here would be that it would a) not be a 'hate campaign' full of sordid fictions, it would simply be a public challenging and uncovering of realities Brown and his nabobs seem utterly desperate to conceal, but which the electorate have to know know (a bit like Charles Kennedy and his drinking, only without the sympathy for a good man brought low by a physical dependency. Quite the opposite, in all ways, in fact).

And b) this would not be myth-making in any sense of the term, but demythologising. Brown and his allies, in concealing his unfitness to rule, have from day one of his Chancellorship developed deceits and conceits about this man which must be unpicked, unpacked and shown up as the damning evidence they are of his utter personal dishonesty. He is unfit to govern.

So the attack must be shifted to Brown and must be thorough and relentless. The public must be left in no doubt about what this man is, what men like him want and what they are capable of in attempting to get it. Namely, power. Perversely, he doesn't really know why he wants power, he just knows it's all he wants.

His economic record will then (finally) be permitted to speak for itself.

Look chaps, I was laughed at (on this very blog) a year ago for pointing out that recessions in the UK are ALWAYS preceded by a bubble in house prices.

So let's worry about preventing bubbles in house prices in future. Whether that's via liberalising planning laws, restricting credit or a return to Domestic Rates or Land Value Tax is up to you to decide.

Patsy, 'the householder' is not a small section of society, it's all of us, isn't it? Don't we all live in households?

Jono @ 21.30 - What a totally fascinating comment, because every sentence that you wrote is indisputable! I only hope that someone from CCHQ sees your comment! I think that your next to last sentence - 'Perversely, he doesn't really know why he wants power, he just knows it's all he wants.' - fits in with what I speculated in an earlier comment on this thread. I said that it appears, that he decided around the age of six, that he wanted to be Prime Minister! Now if this idea was fostered, in the child - by family etc:, from that age, it could certainly lead to some of the somewhat anti-social traits that the man seems to display periodically. And at the same time, the influence of the ?religious household of his childhood, could only enhance his sense of specialness, and maybe mission, while at the same time expecting people to understand this, and make special allowances for him.

I think it would explain his apparent ability to convince himself that he always speaks the truth, which would explain the 'boom and bust' anomaly!

I think your speculation about his approach to the next General Election is quite accurate, I have thought the same for a month or so, so much so that I asked an MP last week whether it was possible for a PM to postpone or dispense with a GE, but he seemed to think that that would be unlikely to happen. I did not make further comment, but did NOT change my mind!!

Mark Wadsworth I am afraid I don't know what you are referring to - this time! On this thread I have mentioned 'household' once @ 23.03 above, which you could NOT have seen when you wrote your commented @ 22.50!!

Also on the thread I have been commenting on Brown, and maybe the antics of labour MP's and that is all.

@Patsy Sergeant, 23:03

I do try to read through the previous comments - but I'm not very thorough. I regret that habit here because If I'd bothered to focus on your earlier remarks, I think mine would have been a little less hazy and a lot more in tune.

And your comment on my stream of unconsciousness was also highly educational. This quote, for example:


So his existence from childhood to now represents a uniquely rarefied journey. One that is totally other to 99% of the UK population. He's actually emerged, ready-built, from a cult! You've revealed that and I think that information should be passed on.

Just don't mention Heseltine. You know: backs of envelopes, sense of destiny, time-scale to world domination - that kind of thing.

I suppose the real difference is that the Conservative Party seems to know how to handle its emergent dictators. The Labour Party thinks theirs are great.

Gordon Brown and his entire front bench (especially the Home Secretary), are outright liars. I know lying and politics goes hand in hand but Labour take it to new heights in Britain. Labour lie and cheat every step of the way and they think they can get away with it because we're all stupid. They also know that they have corrupt news media outlets like the BBC to cover up their lies. Brown and his front bench are scum and I can't believe the opinion polls don't reflect this obvious fact so clearly yet.

I am hurt in the extreme way.

My precious lady played me for some kind of fool.

I'm a solid person. No one will ever bother me with the truth.

I'm going home. In my country, this would be corrected.

Not in Britain

Fuck you Brits! Hey, not my fault, was it?

Jono, come back some time, there is plenty of room for all sorts on here, although the space is running our in the country as a whole!

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker