The two characters who have dominated British politics for over a decade were for a long time hard to fathom. But after the last year in particular, as the media have been unable to hide away their plots and coup attempts against each other any longer, the picture of what they are really like as people has become easier to read.
Gordon Brown has little or no self belief. See his original signature before he was coached. There was a ludicrously large G followed by almost an equally vast B, but 'rown' fell away into miniature insignificance.
Then think of his speech in Downing Street. Ludicrous repetition of the word 'Change' and a confidence that the programme he fronts up is for the good, but as soon as it was Gordon's moment to speak about himself, he fell away into a miniature frightened Gordon who could only promise to 'do his best', stumbling on his words like a small boy addressing his Headmaster after a severe telling off. It was instructive that he needed to rest his confidence on his old school motto. Deep down under his bluff middle aged exterior,Gordon has no more belief in himself now than he did then. He's still fighting that child-like battle for self-belief. He cannot win it - heaven only knows what traumas he must have suffered as a child - but the only way he can satisfy his craving is to get others to buckle to his superiority, and allow him to be in control so that he, not they, is giving out the pain.
Accordingly Brown surounds himself with servile ceatures who dare not speak until spoken to, who know that their position depends at all times on flattery, and deference to Gordon. Even dear old defecting Quentin Davies, who regularly slated Gordon Brown in an unusually personal way, seemed to know that his own need for recognition, now depended on handing Brown ludicrously over-generous praise for his past achievements. You are safe either if you believe Gordon Brown is a genius, or if you are good at pretending that you do. Celebrity in others is not to be acknowledged any more. There is now only one real celebrity. All others are poor imitations of the real thing.
The Queen he will bestow full respect to though, as she and he stand at the top of the hill. But EU meetings, other international organisations, heads of state, newspaper tycoons must all pay homage to the greatness of Gordon or feel the chill.
Blair was the exact opposite. He liked to rub along with Pop stars, Presidents, Popes, Comedians - in fact anyone other than the only celebrity who still stood one rank above him and Cherie, who his wife could not stand! The Queen steadfastly refused to call him Tony. It was 'Prime MInister' and 'Mrs Blair' to the end. Only she was able to stand clear of the sofaisation of all Blair's relationships.
He was so cocky that he felt he could walk round any opponent whenever he chose. He couldn't be arsed with delving into too much detail - just enough to be able to fend off questions, and no more. The hard longterm thinking had to be done by someone else. He liked informal environments where he could use his self confidence to see off any jibes and make others appear to be overly strident, serious or extreme. Even parliamentary Questions suited his style. As there is no time to go into detail, he could always paint a instant picture, which left the real story untold or sounding unlikely. The longtem didn't matter. Only the instant, the moment. If Blair could look good now, he could always look good and keep in control. He only dallied with today's situation and its perceptions. He knew that tomorrow everything would be different, and he could strike a different pose. He avoided anything too longterm most of the time. Obviously Iraq became a situation beyond his control, and somehow even though it was mostly a situation of his creation, he still managed to create distance between himself and the unfolding catastrophy.
His favourite ploy was positioning himself in the middle where he could play everyone else off - Mandelson against Brown, Campbell against Brown, Cherie against Brown. It worked for many years but Brown would never let go, and he wore down all these opponents that stood in his way. Finally Blair stood alone and Brown arranged the Watson coup attempt which manoevred Blair towards the exit. The Cash for Peerages investigation merely ensured Blair stuck to the terms of the deal this time.
Blair surrounded hmself with strong personalities, and let them run things around him - starting with Cherie, then Mandelson, Campbell, Brown and Prescott. For Blair everything ran around his image, which he loves more than life itself. Any tarnishing of it or criticism is so painful to him that he doesn't even see that he might have failed. His narcissistic tendencies endured to the end, when Parliament was suckered into performing the final act of the Blair soap opera, where he, for the very last time was the only focus - not his cause, but he himself. His image was all. He knew as he sat down that the game was finally up, and his choking voice showed that losing the golden position of power was breaking his heart.
The legacy of his years will be debated forever. But 'wasted opportunity' will be one phrase that will be heard over and over again. Blair liked to leave all the thinking to others - Iraq was decided by Bush. he went along with that. The EU programme was worked out by Brussels and Merkel. He went along with that. Even the Irish peace process which he is claiming as his legacy, was started by Major. Blair's only real legacy was Blair himself - the iconic image that he created and loved.
Brown wants to be different. He is different. But his flawed character, his desperate lack of self belief renders him a weak leader of others. In as much as Blair's narcisiicism neutralised him as a successful Prime Minister, Brown's character and his similar inability to look at events as they really are, will be equally poor in results. These two flawed characters found themselves at the centre, both equally incapable of achieving anything other than satisfying the needs of their defective personalities by clinging to power. We've suffered the first. Now we'll have to endure the second.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Friday, June 29, 2007
Why Do Conservatives Fear A Nick Clegg Coup?
As Gordon Brown recruits Lib Dem advisers into his team, many fear that he will split away the left wing of the Lib Dem party and the right will fall to a Nick Clegg coup. They would then compete directly for Conservative votes. Would that be such a bad thing?
If there were two Conservative Parties instead of two Labour Parties, we could be the ones to make electoral pacts and target Labour in combination, rather than facing a double enemy. Lib Dems have always obliged Labour in this way, especially noticeable in 2001 but also to some extent in 2005.
It need not be all doom and gloom. Cameron has prepared the ground by adopting many Lib Dem policies that fit with Conservative ideals. Courage, Mes Braves!!
If there were two Conservative Parties instead of two Labour Parties, we could be the ones to make electoral pacts and target Labour in combination, rather than facing a double enemy. Lib Dems have always obliged Labour in this way, especially noticeable in 2001 but also to some extent in 2005.
It need not be all doom and gloom. Cameron has prepared the ground by adopting many Lib Dem policies that fit with Conservative ideals. Courage, Mes Braves!!
Conservatives - The Far Too Nace Party
Cameron's light touch, intelligence and gentility are his strength but also his weakness. He need a foil - not as in Osborne and Hague, as they too are the same type.
Blair was airy and light touch but he was surrounded with strong henchmen - Mandelson, Brown, Cherie!, Campbell, Prescott.
You cannot have Camerons surrounded by more and more of the same type.
If Cameron is Blair, where are the Mandelsons, Campbells, Browns, Prescotts? The fighters and detail people.
There are people in Conservative ranks who can put beef in the Cameron sandwich. But they have been marginalised by the modernisation programme.
As this is a turning point, and Cameron sees the need for the 'and theory', he needs people who can deliver that strategy. That won't be done by the same nice friendly enthusiastic bunch. Cameron needs an eccentric or two alongside his own excellent professionalism...not more and more the same which smells of weakness, and can become a boring diet.
John Hayes is my recommendation for Party Chairman with these thoughts in mind. The quilt should be patchwork not monocultural. The problem was at one time being seen as the 'nasty' party . Now it's the far too nace party. It needs to be more real.
Blair was airy and light touch but he was surrounded with strong henchmen - Mandelson, Brown, Cherie!, Campbell, Prescott.
You cannot have Camerons surrounded by more and more of the same type.
If Cameron is Blair, where are the Mandelsons, Campbells, Browns, Prescotts? The fighters and detail people.
There are people in Conservative ranks who can put beef in the Cameron sandwich. But they have been marginalised by the modernisation programme.
As this is a turning point, and Cameron sees the need for the 'and theory', he needs people who can deliver that strategy. That won't be done by the same nice friendly enthusiastic bunch. Cameron needs an eccentric or two alongside his own excellent professionalism...not more and more the same which smells of weakness, and can become a boring diet.
John Hayes is my recommendation for Party Chairman with these thoughts in mind. The quilt should be patchwork not monocultural. The problem was at one time being seen as the 'nasty' party . Now it's the far too nace party. It needs to be more real.
Gentle Cameron Needs A Foil
People moan about lack of policy content. Cameron is ridiculed by Piers Morgan on Question Time for it last night. Time to put some meat into the Cameron sandwich - John Hayes would be suitable...and would reset the tone to a more serious level.
The froth and spin of the A List period was ideal to face Blair - but not to face Brown, and his continuing attempt to slide the Constitution through and break us up into regions without democratic reference.
We have our more serious members who have strategic ability at grass roots level which you need as we are moving towards an election footing. John Hayes would reset the tone, just as required. We don't just need an Iain Dale pleasing reshuffle. The game's moved on from the light touch of the Blair era, where spin outplayed content. Great clunking fists don't even notice intelligence and gentility. Hayes has those but also a tougher and determined side - equal to the measure of the Brown fist.
The light touch of Cameron needs a foil. Osborne is light touch. So is Hague. Hayes is a different flavour. He'd be the ideal next Chairman of the Conservative Party.
The froth and spin of the A List period was ideal to face Blair - but not to face Brown, and his continuing attempt to slide the Constitution through and break us up into regions without democratic reference.
We have our more serious members who have strategic ability at grass roots level which you need as we are moving towards an election footing. John Hayes would reset the tone, just as required. We don't just need an Iain Dale pleasing reshuffle. The game's moved on from the light touch of the Blair era, where spin outplayed content. Great clunking fists don't even notice intelligence and gentility. Hayes has those but also a tougher and determined side - equal to the measure of the Brown fist.
The light touch of Cameron needs a foil. Osborne is light touch. So is Hague. Hayes is a different flavour. He'd be the ideal next Chairman of the Conservative Party.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Inflation Is Gordon Brown's Achilles Heel
For a view that thinks US inflation is actually 10%, and not 2.5% which it is according to government statistsics -
see this webiste which publishes 'shadow' statistics.
http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/data
The inflation in the euro area has been around 15% since launch with the euro's value more than halving. This has been reported as 2-3% inflation by the ECB. Asset price inflation is running away with itself across the eurozone, but Trichet is desperately trying to stop the currency rising. It is laughable that they still pretend they are in control.
In the UK also inflation has been much higher than claimed. They can lie about infaltion, but not about interest rates. Those are now heading North - which kind of proves that the CPI inflation rates are a fabrication created by Gordon Brown to hide the truth.
He instructed the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee to observe only the CPI (Consumer Price Index which excludes cost of housing and taxes), and ignore the more traditional RPI (Retail Price Index). Brown cannot pretend it's nothing to do with him...but of course he will.
Cameron should open up on Brown on this area. Brown is highly vulnerable. He's lost control of inflation, depsite avoiding the Euro and he should pay a political price for having done so.
see this webiste which publishes 'shadow' statistics.
http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/data
The inflation in the euro area has been around 15% since launch with the euro's value more than halving. This has been reported as 2-3% inflation by the ECB. Asset price inflation is running away with itself across the eurozone, but Trichet is desperately trying to stop the currency rising. It is laughable that they still pretend they are in control.
In the UK also inflation has been much higher than claimed. They can lie about infaltion, but not about interest rates. Those are now heading North - which kind of proves that the CPI inflation rates are a fabrication created by Gordon Brown to hide the truth.
He instructed the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee to observe only the CPI (Consumer Price Index which excludes cost of housing and taxes), and ignore the more traditional RPI (Retail Price Index). Brown cannot pretend it's nothing to do with him...but of course he will.
Cameron should open up on Brown on this area. Brown is highly vulnerable. He's lost control of inflation, depsite avoiding the Euro and he should pay a political price for having done so.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Why Brown Is Turning Off Labour Voters?
On labour blogs they are spitting about the Ashdown thing, and the dumping of trades unions from policy input. Brown obviously thinks he will reaise funds elsewhere now. Many labour supporters are furious also about the Constitution stitch-up, especially as Brown’s intervention was to protect ‘free undistorted competition’.
You will be feeling shocked if you believed Gordon Brown was a ‘Labour’ leader, more to the left than Blair and more eurosceptic as he’s kind of pretended all these years. He’s turning into a stronger version of NuLab than Tony was.
It’s enough to make you stay at home
You will be feeling shocked if you believed Gordon Brown was a ‘Labour’ leader, more to the left than Blair and more eurosceptic as he’s kind of pretended all these years. He’s turning into a stronger version of NuLab than Tony was.
It’s enough to make you stay at home
Monday, June 25, 2007
America Needs To Play Catch-Up
Tapestry, I think you have been given incorrect information about the US. Fox News in the United States is a right of center news channel, and is generally hostile to Europe; dismantling Fox will be a victory for Brussels, not Euroskeptics (the American spelling of that word looks ugly, I'll admit).
Also, as far as Ireland is concerned, it's generally pro-EU policy and shameful diplomatic past doesn't provide much hope that it will be the savior you imagine. JF On Conservativehome
MY REPLY
JF, I'm aware of the Fox standpoint. Murdoch is a sly old fox himself. He can run separate strategies in different places in his organisation. In fact he has to do so to disguise his strategies.
He will allow his newspapers to run powerful anti-EU stories, but he will go out of his way to keep the people, who ensure the EU keeps coming, in power, as that is all that matters in the end of the day.
Because he writes anti-EU, people are confused into thinking he has an anti-EU strategy. There is plenty enough evidence that this is a cover-up, and he has made all his progress in monopolising sport TV and holding onto monopolistic media positions by ensuring the various treaties get signed, and their protagonists such as Brown survive in power.
In the US, he will be thought of as a eurosceptic too, but that is where you would be wrong again. For evidence on this read Lance Price - The Spin Doctor;s Diary, who worked for Blair in 10 Downing St. Blair had agreed not to alter his EU policy on any matter without clearing it first with Murdoch.
Leon Brittan, ex-EU Commissioner is quoted this weekend as saying that Blair took more trouble to negotiate so that Rupert Murdoch's privileges could survive, than he bothered to protect Britain's economy. And Leon's a europhile!
The Murdoch position is sufficient to deceive most people in washington, and most people in Britain. If the USA wants to stop the EU Constitution, they must exert leverage on Murdoch one way or another - although it might be a bit late. But that's who controls the allocation of psoition amond=gst British politicans. So far Parliament has always caved in to his pressure.
Maybe this time, MPs will stand and fight for their survival, but it will help a lot if Murdoch is neutralised. America's intervention will be essential to achieve this.
Posted by: tapestry | June 25, 2007 at 05:59 PM
Also, as far as Ireland is concerned, it's generally pro-EU policy and shameful diplomatic past doesn't provide much hope that it will be the savior you imagine. JF On Conservativehome
MY REPLY
JF, I'm aware of the Fox standpoint. Murdoch is a sly old fox himself. He can run separate strategies in different places in his organisation. In fact he has to do so to disguise his strategies.
He will allow his newspapers to run powerful anti-EU stories, but he will go out of his way to keep the people, who ensure the EU keeps coming, in power, as that is all that matters in the end of the day.
Because he writes anti-EU, people are confused into thinking he has an anti-EU strategy. There is plenty enough evidence that this is a cover-up, and he has made all his progress in monopolising sport TV and holding onto monopolistic media positions by ensuring the various treaties get signed, and their protagonists such as Brown survive in power.
In the US, he will be thought of as a eurosceptic too, but that is where you would be wrong again. For evidence on this read Lance Price - The Spin Doctor;s Diary, who worked for Blair in 10 Downing St. Blair had agreed not to alter his EU policy on any matter without clearing it first with Murdoch.
Leon Brittan, ex-EU Commissioner is quoted this weekend as saying that Blair took more trouble to negotiate so that Rupert Murdoch's privileges could survive, than he bothered to protect Britain's economy. And Leon's a europhile!
The Murdoch position is sufficient to deceive most people in washington, and most people in Britain. If the USA wants to stop the EU Constitution, they must exert leverage on Murdoch one way or another - although it might be a bit late. But that's who controls the allocation of psoition amond=gst British politicans. So far Parliament has always caved in to his pressure.
Maybe this time, MPs will stand and fight for their survival, but it will help a lot if Murdoch is neutralised. America's intervention will be essential to achieve this.
Posted by: tapestry | June 25, 2007 at 05:59 PM
Wakey Wakey America
America might be a little bit more alert about the Constitution Treaty than they were at the time of the Nice Treaty in 2001. Pre 9/11 America had no idea or interest outside its borders. Europe was only of mild interest as a holiday destination.
Now it is the greatest potential threat to the stability of America's world, not just because Europe harbours terrorists that desire America harm. The EU itself, en bloc would set itself in competition with the USA as its number 1 objective. Judging by US channel news reports, they are at last awake to the threat.
They could start work in Ireland and encourage the Irish to remember the ancient loyalties between Ireland and America, and persuade the Irish to reject the Treaty.
Failing that, they could strong arm Rupert Murdoch and threaten him with the loss of his precious FIX, sorry FOX TV. Murdoch is subject to EU competition laws and acts as the main manipulator of EU power in Britain to ensure they leave him alone to make billions from TV sport - never mind the headlines in The Sun.
Murdoch backed Blair all the way, and he's backing Brown now. The USA must surely realise that they need to twist Murdoch's arm up his back harder than the EU is doing if they want the Constitution buried.
Other than that, once the EU acquires the statehood it desires, the USA might as well accept that there is trouble ahead, and it will have to fall into line behind Brussels, and face humiliation.
I am sure America is not sleeping this time, and she will fight to stop Merkel and Sarkozy. It's not too late, just nearly too late.
Now it is the greatest potential threat to the stability of America's world, not just because Europe harbours terrorists that desire America harm. The EU itself, en bloc would set itself in competition with the USA as its number 1 objective. Judging by US channel news reports, they are at last awake to the threat.
They could start work in Ireland and encourage the Irish to remember the ancient loyalties between Ireland and America, and persuade the Irish to reject the Treaty.
Failing that, they could strong arm Rupert Murdoch and threaten him with the loss of his precious FIX, sorry FOX TV. Murdoch is subject to EU competition laws and acts as the main manipulator of EU power in Britain to ensure they leave him alone to make billions from TV sport - never mind the headlines in The Sun.
Murdoch backed Blair all the way, and he's backing Brown now. The USA must surely realise that they need to twist Murdoch's arm up his back harder than the EU is doing if they want the Constitution buried.
Other than that, once the EU acquires the statehood it desires, the USA might as well accept that there is trouble ahead, and it will have to fall into line behind Brussels, and face humiliation.
I am sure America is not sleeping this time, and she will fight to stop Merkel and Sarkozy. It's not too late, just nearly too late.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Ken Clarke Must Wait Outside Headmaster's Study
The media is in full cry trying to slide the EU Constitution past the noses of the people, and puff up Gordon Brown, the man selected to perform their final act of treachery. Which names would you expect to be at the forefront - Portillo? yes. Ken Clarke? yes.
The Portillo critique is pantomime, straight from Bruce Forsyth's The Generation Game. 'Modernise more, modernise more - not that much.' Portillo's starting to look and sound dated, which is quite comical for a professed moderniser. It would be nice to take him seriously, but who does?
Ken Clarke's brilliance is combined with his usual appalling inattention to detail. He needs a damned good thrashing. He'd look perfect in 1930's school cap, short trousers and a blazer wouldn't he, combined with cheeky grin. 'Just William' springs to mind.
If these two jokers are the worst the media can find to throw at us, then we can get straight back to the serious business. Hague's impressing me no end.
Cameron should let the media do their worst, not rush out and lower himself to responding to such nonsense. He will pick his moment, once all the Brown ballyhoo starts to tire. Knowing Gordon Brown, he won't have long to wait.
Posted by: Tapestry | June 24, 2007 at 11:35
The Portillo critique is pantomime, straight from Bruce Forsyth's The Generation Game. 'Modernise more, modernise more - not that much.' Portillo's starting to look and sound dated, which is quite comical for a professed moderniser. It would be nice to take him seriously, but who does?
Ken Clarke's brilliance is combined with his usual appalling inattention to detail. He needs a damned good thrashing. He'd look perfect in 1930's school cap, short trousers and a blazer wouldn't he, combined with cheeky grin. 'Just William' springs to mind.
If these two jokers are the worst the media can find to throw at us, then we can get straight back to the serious business. Hague's impressing me no end.
Cameron should let the media do their worst, not rush out and lower himself to responding to such nonsense. He will pick his moment, once all the Brown ballyhoo starts to tire. Knowing Gordon Brown, he won't have long to wait.
Posted by: Tapestry | June 24, 2007 at 11:35
I Predicted Harman When She Was 10/1
MY POST ON JUNE 15th On Politicalbetting.com - How secure is the postal voting system being used? If it’s anything like the general election system, there will be plenty of opportunity for someone to rig the process to bring the ‘required’ result.
What would Broon’s desired result be? Hilary Benn possibly. No possible threat to Broon as a future leader, and another one who’s keen to hand billions over to African dictators like Broon himself. Johnson’s not going to be Broon’s choice as he might become a threat and he’s known to be Blairite. The other possible winner in a rigged vote would be Harriet Harman. Broon would not feel threatened by her, and he’d look good having a woman alongside. Ignoring the genuine voting, and imagining that the whole thing’s going to rigged anyway, it looks like Harman.
by Tapestry June 15th, 2007 at 10:25 am on Politicalbetting
and now she's won the Labour party Deputy Leadership on a wafer thin victory. It’s a classic fiddled election result like France’s referendum on the Euro. How many elections across Eurpe now smell of fixing? Sarkozy? Merkel especially? apparently by one seat. Funny how the most pro-Euro ones win every time. Europe is a post-democracy, a pseudo-democracy - run and controlled through the media - a mediocracy.
What would Broon’s desired result be? Hilary Benn possibly. No possible threat to Broon as a future leader, and another one who’s keen to hand billions over to African dictators like Broon himself. Johnson’s not going to be Broon’s choice as he might become a threat and he’s known to be Blairite. The other possible winner in a rigged vote would be Harriet Harman. Broon would not feel threatened by her, and he’d look good having a woman alongside. Ignoring the genuine voting, and imagining that the whole thing’s going to rigged anyway, it looks like Harman.
by Tapestry June 15th, 2007 at 10:25 am on Politicalbetting
and now she's won the Labour party Deputy Leadership on a wafer thin victory. It’s a classic fiddled election result like France’s referendum on the Euro. How many elections across Eurpe now smell of fixing? Sarkozy? Merkel especially? apparently by one seat. Funny how the most pro-Euro ones win every time. Europe is a post-democracy, a pseudo-democracy - run and controlled through the media - a mediocracy.
Brown On The Politics Show
Brown on The Politics Show - earlier today
Q. Are you going to have a deputy prime minister?
A. That's up to me.
Q. The Deputy Leadership Contest looked like a leap to the left.
A. All must support the manifesto of our party...we must honour our manifesto.
No comeback from interviewer that a referendum was promised in the Labour Party manifesto.
Q. Europe?
A. I've read the detail from Brussels. All our 4 red lines have been achieved. In these areas we are properly protected as a country.
Q. will there be a referendum?
A. because we've achieved all 4 red lines, the public would not expect a referendum.
Q. Hague says you have no mandate to agree the Treaty.
A. He would say that wouldn't he. The effects people are claiming are not true.
Q. Qualified Majority Voting.
A. We've asked for QMV in certain areas. It's not a constitution. It's an amending treaty. Our negotiations have been successful.
We've met our red line negotiating objectives.
Q. will Blair become Bush's middle east envoy?
A. lots of words meaning YES.
Q. how will you personally change in the way you deal with your colleagues.
A. you have to bring people together. you have to reach out, build a shared sense of national purpose. education. science. innovation. build a national consensus.
GORDON, 85% of your people want a referendum on the Constitution. A majority of MPs want one. How will you achieve national consensus from the 15% who don't care about Europe?
Q. Are you going to have a deputy prime minister?
A. That's up to me.
Q. The Deputy Leadership Contest looked like a leap to the left.
A. All must support the manifesto of our party...we must honour our manifesto.
No comeback from interviewer that a referendum was promised in the Labour Party manifesto.
Q. Europe?
A. I've read the detail from Brussels. All our 4 red lines have been achieved. In these areas we are properly protected as a country.
Q. will there be a referendum?
A. because we've achieved all 4 red lines, the public would not expect a referendum.
Q. Hague says you have no mandate to agree the Treaty.
A. He would say that wouldn't he. The effects people are claiming are not true.
Q. Qualified Majority Voting.
A. We've asked for QMV in certain areas. It's not a constitution. It's an amending treaty. Our negotiations have been successful.
We've met our red line negotiating objectives.
Q. will Blair become Bush's middle east envoy?
A. lots of words meaning YES.
Q. how will you personally change in the way you deal with your colleagues.
A. you have to bring people together. you have to reach out, build a shared sense of national purpose. education. science. innovation. build a national consensus.
GORDON, 85% of your people want a referendum on the Constitution. A majority of MPs want one. How will you achieve national consensus from the 15% who don't care about Europe?
Doubts Grow About Constitution
The Observer celebrates shrilly the Treaty with its headline on page 35 - Europe Finally Unites After Agreeing To Treaty.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2109970,00.html
In the third column, the tone of celebration is moderated by 'fears that Sarkozy had suceeded in diluting the EU's historic commitment to an unfettered free market. Alarm bells rang..in the British delegation when it emerged that Merkelhad agreed to drop the EU's 50 year commitment to promoting 'undistorted competition'.
Lord Brittan said,'so much capital was devoted to supporting 'red lines' for the benefit of Rupert Murdoch that a substantial weakening of competition policy was slipped through that is damaging to Britain.'
This view from a previous EU Commissioner and Europhile is interesting. Lance Price wrote in his Spin Doctor's Diary that Rupert Murdoch effectively controlled Britain's relationship with the EU under Blair. This was not expanded on and seemed an almost incredible assertion. But here again in today's Observer we find the same implication - that Rupert Murdoch controls our negotiations with the EU.
Clearly Gordon Brown is going to allow Murdoch to dictate his European Policy. To achieve a democracy, Rupert Murdoch should be standing for election, not Gordon Brown. Britain is ruled secretly by a dictator who is protecting his media privileges - and the same privileges enable him to exert so much leverage over our political system that he can effectively control it. If you ever doubted this theory, we now have more evidence.
Cameron and Hague will be facing withering fire from Murdoch as they campaign for the referendum, and Brown will be praised to the rafters for pursuing his act of treachery to the politcal system that has promoted him to its pinnacle.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2109970,00.html
In the third column, the tone of celebration is moderated by 'fears that Sarkozy had suceeded in diluting the EU's historic commitment to an unfettered free market. Alarm bells rang..in the British delegation when it emerged that Merkelhad agreed to drop the EU's 50 year commitment to promoting 'undistorted competition'.
Lord Brittan said,'so much capital was devoted to supporting 'red lines' for the benefit of Rupert Murdoch that a substantial weakening of competition policy was slipped through that is damaging to Britain.'
This view from a previous EU Commissioner and Europhile is interesting. Lance Price wrote in his Spin Doctor's Diary that Rupert Murdoch effectively controlled Britain's relationship with the EU under Blair. This was not expanded on and seemed an almost incredible assertion. But here again in today's Observer we find the same implication - that Rupert Murdoch controls our negotiations with the EU.
Clearly Gordon Brown is going to allow Murdoch to dictate his European Policy. To achieve a democracy, Rupert Murdoch should be standing for election, not Gordon Brown. Britain is ruled secretly by a dictator who is protecting his media privileges - and the same privileges enable him to exert so much leverage over our political system that he can effectively control it. If you ever doubted this theory, we now have more evidence.
Cameron and Hague will be facing withering fire from Murdoch as they campaign for the referendum, and Brown will be praised to the rafters for pursuing his act of treachery to the politcal system that has promoted him to its pinnacle.
Friday, June 22, 2007
The Brown Terror Begins
The gremlins are out in force on the web today. Probably trying to stifle comment at this sensitive time.
Cameron might do better to hold his fire rather than reshuffling his team to match Brown's early moves. The Conservatives are all wound up getting ready to play Brown. But he'll be hiding in his bunker 9 days out of 10, waiting for Cameron to make a move, or events to force his hand, which he will then respond to.
His own side will be in total confusion as to what he's up to, as he only ever gives out the minimum.
Cameron should play the new game and not carry on as if Blair were still there hoovering up all the limelight. With Brown as PM, limelight wil be going cheap.
It will be like hunting a bear that lives in a cave, which only comes out once every two weeks to give an awful terrifying roar, and then disappears again while the rest of the world wonders what it all meant.
If Cameron can provide a feeling of calm and continuity, that will tend to make people feel they would prefer that living at the mercy of an ursine roar. Less action and initiative, more meaning and reassurance will be at a premium during the Brown Terror.
Cameron might do better to hold his fire rather than reshuffling his team to match Brown's early moves. The Conservatives are all wound up getting ready to play Brown. But he'll be hiding in his bunker 9 days out of 10, waiting for Cameron to make a move, or events to force his hand, which he will then respond to.
His own side will be in total confusion as to what he's up to, as he only ever gives out the minimum.
Cameron should play the new game and not carry on as if Blair were still there hoovering up all the limelight. With Brown as PM, limelight wil be going cheap.
It will be like hunting a bear that lives in a cave, which only comes out once every two weeks to give an awful terrifying roar, and then disappears again while the rest of the world wonders what it all meant.
If Cameron can provide a feeling of calm and continuity, that will tend to make people feel they would prefer that living at the mercy of an ursine roar. Less action and initiative, more meaning and reassurance will be at a premium during the Brown Terror.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
King Gordon The First
Those who run political parties are beginning to look for safety. Blair wants a shiny job in Brussels. Brown and Ming want to stop opposing each other.
They can all see that once the Constitreaty is signed, the game's over anyway so they might as well all hang up their weapons and get together for a nice easy run while Brussels takes over.
Do they need voters any more? Not really. They can orchestrate the outcomes they desire with the media alone.
Cameron's not playing to the corruption system. He doesn't quite fit in with the back-scratching ways. He won't attend EPP meetings. He missed Murdoch's annual bash. But he's no threat. With the LD's and Lab finally admitting publicly that they are in fact an anti-Tory alliance, the chances for Cameron are over.
Gordon could retire to Buckingham Palace. He might as well fire the Monarchy next.
They can all see that once the Constitreaty is signed, the game's over anyway so they might as well all hang up their weapons and get together for a nice easy run while Brussels takes over.
Do they need voters any more? Not really. They can orchestrate the outcomes they desire with the media alone.
Cameron's not playing to the corruption system. He doesn't quite fit in with the back-scratching ways. He won't attend EPP meetings. He missed Murdoch's annual bash. But he's no threat. With the LD's and Lab finally admitting publicly that they are in fact an anti-Tory alliance, the chances for Cameron are over.
Gordon could retire to Buckingham Palace. He might as well fire the Monarchy next.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
The man Who Wants Blair 2B EU President - Pissed!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uxb0JHqzlA
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2bc60e12-1b72-11dc-bc55-000b5df10621.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2bc60e12-1b72-11dc-bc55-000b5df10621.html
Friday, June 15, 2007
Gordon Brown's Baby Boom
The tax credit systems is deeply flawed as Frank Field explains, let alone the fact that it spews out incorrect £100's of millions which are not collectable back, and it is also subject to widespread fraud.
There are other effects.
Because Broon has volunteered government money (and I mean big money, not mere assistance but more like enough to live on) to pay for children (single parents working 16 hours a week get £487 after tax credits - an astonishing £30 an hour equivalent), there are far larger numbers of children being born.
The more children you have, the more money you get. The programme is ultimately self-defeating, as the pool of demand ('poverty') is growing rapidly.
My brother has six childtren. It was not worth both he and his wife working because of tax credits, so he's gone down to three days a week, and she's part time too. The country gets exactly what it pays for - more children and less work.
I'm single with no children myself. Because tax rates on taking money out from my company is now 63.8% (40% Income Tax plus 23.8% Nat Ins), I now live from rental income (taxed at 40%) and so I too am no longer working (pre-1997 you could take money from a company taxed at 40%).
Broon has pushed both my brother and myself out of work - me, by taxing so highly it's not worth it, and my brother because of supposedly 'eradicating child poverty'!
It's work that Brown's eradicating - not child poverty! All of this talk of hard working families is a joke. With Gordon paying for it all, they can put their feet up, and party.
There are other effects.
Because Broon has volunteered government money (and I mean big money, not mere assistance but more like enough to live on) to pay for children (single parents working 16 hours a week get £487 after tax credits - an astonishing £30 an hour equivalent), there are far larger numbers of children being born.
The more children you have, the more money you get. The programme is ultimately self-defeating, as the pool of demand ('poverty') is growing rapidly.
My brother has six childtren. It was not worth both he and his wife working because of tax credits, so he's gone down to three days a week, and she's part time too. The country gets exactly what it pays for - more children and less work.
I'm single with no children myself. Because tax rates on taking money out from my company is now 63.8% (40% Income Tax plus 23.8% Nat Ins), I now live from rental income (taxed at 40%) and so I too am no longer working (pre-1997 you could take money from a company taxed at 40%).
Broon has pushed both my brother and myself out of work - me, by taxing so highly it's not worth it, and my brother because of supposedly 'eradicating child poverty'!
It's work that Brown's eradicating - not child poverty! All of this talk of hard working families is a joke. With Gordon paying for it all, they can put their feet up, and party.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Bob Woolmer - Another Not-Assassinated Person
On the heels of Diana and David Kelly, another mysterious death will leave doubts lingering.
The BBC reports today,
'But deputy police commissioner Mark Shields told the BBC a later x-ray showed the bone was not broken. ' - why not the Police Commissioner himself? Doesn't he agree with the new version of what happened?
"I instructed my team... to go back and actually retrieve it from his body... We got it x-rayed and the fact is that the bone wasn't broken in the first place," he said. - what does the medical knowledge on this say? And are you sure it's the right bone?
Mr Woolmer's widow, Gill, welcomed the latest news, saying: "My sons and I are relieved to be officially informed that Bob died of natural causes and that no foul play is suspected in his death." Yes if you trust the new version. The first version seemed real enough. Do you think they didn't seek second opinions immediately before making such as erious announcement, threatening the whole wolrd cup?
But
Pakistan
's former captain Imran Khan said he was shocked there was no apology to the national side. all the political pressure could well have forced the Police to rethink their first and probably honest decision
He said
Pakistan
's cricket board should sue those responsible for the "humiliation that the
Pakistan
team went through".
"Bob Woolmer had diabetes, he had blood pressure, an enlarged heart, he had respiratory problems. On top of it, the depression of losing and then he drank a bottle of champagne. They should have first ruled out natural causes before this whole drama about the murder," Imran Khan said. so what actually killed him then Imran?
The BBC's Andy Gallacher in
Kingston
says this is an embarrassing U-turn for the Jamaican police.
He says the news conference was an attempt to shift the blame for the errors in the case onto the report of the original pathologist, Dr Ere Sheshiah. It's pretty certain that one person who won't be allowed to comment in public will be Dr Ere Sheshiah. The truth is no longer required, I doubt. The whole thing will be brushed under the carpet as quickly as they can
The BBC reports today,
'But deputy police commissioner Mark Shields told the BBC a later x-ray showed the bone was not broken. ' - why not the Police Commissioner himself? Doesn't he agree with the new version of what happened?
"I instructed my team... to go back and actually retrieve it from his body... We got it x-rayed and the fact is that the bone wasn't broken in the first place," he said. - what does the medical knowledge on this say? And are you sure it's the right bone?
Mr Woolmer's widow, Gill, welcomed the latest news, saying: "My sons and I are relieved to be officially informed that Bob died of natural causes and that no foul play is suspected in his death." Yes if you trust the new version. The first version seemed real enough. Do you think they didn't seek second opinions immediately before making such as erious announcement, threatening the whole wolrd cup?
But
Pakistan
's former captain Imran Khan said he was shocked there was no apology to the national side. all the political pressure could well have forced the Police to rethink their first and probably honest decision
He said
Pakistan
's cricket board should sue those responsible for the "humiliation that the
Pakistan
team went through".
"Bob Woolmer had diabetes, he had blood pressure, an enlarged heart, he had respiratory problems. On top of it, the depression of losing and then he drank a bottle of champagne. They should have first ruled out natural causes before this whole drama about the murder," Imran Khan said. so what actually killed him then Imran?
The BBC's Andy Gallacher in
Kingston
says this is an embarrassing U-turn for the Jamaican police.
He says the news conference was an attempt to shift the blame for the errors in the case onto the report of the original pathologist, Dr Ere Sheshiah. It's pretty certain that one person who won't be allowed to comment in public will be Dr Ere Sheshiah. The truth is no longer required, I doubt. The whole thing will be brushed under the carpet as quickly as they can
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Britain Bored To Death
Blair's signing the Constitution. Brown will ratify it through Parliament. Cameron won't say much. Goodbye Britain. It's over.
One of the freest and most creative cultures in the world is condemning itself to a grim and rather sad subjugation, a long slow and painful death. It's odd that a nation that used to fight wars to stay free, now throws it all away for no obvious reason, and certainly no positive reason. It's happening purely because the EU freezes our brains by creating a total lack of interest.
A whole country with a 1000 year history ceases to exist because of a lack of interest? The EU is so dull and lifeless that no one wants to know anything about it. If it sent tanks and aircraft and dropped bombs on us, people would react, but boring us to death is working far better. Brits cannot cope with boredom. We respond to humour, to music, to life, to argument, to sport, to animals, to film, theatre, books but not to bureaucracy. They couldn't outfight us, but it seems they can outbore us very easily indeed.
Our culture has one Achilles heel. We don't have any way to deal with really boring uninsiring unproductive slimy bastards who sit and say and do nothing. When the EU does produce any of its propaganda, it is so dull and uninspiring Brits yawn and look somewhere else.
Gordon Brown has seen how it works. He knows that all he has to do is to be as dull as it is possible to be, and he can do with Britain exactly as he likes. No one will trouble him.
People can focus on their obsessions - football, house prices, shopping, alcohol, drugs, sex and the rest but Gordon only has to be dull. The history of Britain ends this summer, along with its once vibrant political culture - the eptaph 'Bored To Death'.
One of the freest and most creative cultures in the world is condemning itself to a grim and rather sad subjugation, a long slow and painful death. It's odd that a nation that used to fight wars to stay free, now throws it all away for no obvious reason, and certainly no positive reason. It's happening purely because the EU freezes our brains by creating a total lack of interest.
A whole country with a 1000 year history ceases to exist because of a lack of interest? The EU is so dull and lifeless that no one wants to know anything about it. If it sent tanks and aircraft and dropped bombs on us, people would react, but boring us to death is working far better. Brits cannot cope with boredom. We respond to humour, to music, to life, to argument, to sport, to animals, to film, theatre, books but not to bureaucracy. They couldn't outfight us, but it seems they can outbore us very easily indeed.
Our culture has one Achilles heel. We don't have any way to deal with really boring uninsiring unproductive slimy bastards who sit and say and do nothing. When the EU does produce any of its propaganda, it is so dull and uninspiring Brits yawn and look somewhere else.
Gordon Brown has seen how it works. He knows that all he has to do is to be as dull as it is possible to be, and he can do with Britain exactly as he likes. No one will trouble him.
People can focus on their obsessions - football, house prices, shopping, alcohol, drugs, sex and the rest but Gordon only has to be dull. The history of Britain ends this summer, along with its once vibrant political culture - the eptaph 'Bored To Death'.
Monday, June 04, 2007
50% Income Tax. labour Are Effing Thick.
Pre-1997 I paid 40% tax on company bonuses. It was worth taking money out of my company, so I worked hard and expanded operations. It cost £100,000 to put £60,000 in my pocket.
Then came Gordon Brown, who added Nat Ins so tax is raised at around 63%. It has, since 1997 cost around £160,000 to put £60,000 in my pocket.
It is simply not worth putting money at risk when you keep 100% of your loss, and only have a beggar's portion if you win. Result - I stopped working and went overseas.
To buy UK assets, instead of earning money, I now borrow with no intention of paying back, except by reselling the asset. I have moved to living from rents and capital gains which are taxed variously, but with top rate at 40%, still acceptable.
It seems odd to me that the kind of investment that creates jobs, raises wealth levels, and makes the economy more productive is the most penalised by tax.
Britain has a problem. People must accept that those who raise the country's productivity and its wealth level have to be rewarded. Taking risks is not a job like a brain surgeon, or architect. You can stop doing it any time. I have, I regret to say. The reason is undoubtedly Gotdon Brown.
If they raise the rate to 50%, that will translate to 73% with nat Ins added on. So I would need to pay £220,000 to put £60,000 in my pocket. Do they think I'm mad?
I have paid far less tax since Gordon Brown starting raising taxes. In fact they keep sending investigators round to try to see where all their money has gine. They really don't have a clue. If the p[urpose of tax is to raise more money, they should cut the rate. BUt of course the purpose is not that at all. They want to flatten wealth levels.
They won't make me poorer. People like me just go - to where people want us, and allow us to be free. That's the main motivation in people running busionesses - to be free of all this crap, and people like Harriet Harman.
Then came Gordon Brown, who added Nat Ins so tax is raised at around 63%. It has, since 1997 cost around £160,000 to put £60,000 in my pocket.
It is simply not worth putting money at risk when you keep 100% of your loss, and only have a beggar's portion if you win. Result - I stopped working and went overseas.
To buy UK assets, instead of earning money, I now borrow with no intention of paying back, except by reselling the asset. I have moved to living from rents and capital gains which are taxed variously, but with top rate at 40%, still acceptable.
It seems odd to me that the kind of investment that creates jobs, raises wealth levels, and makes the economy more productive is the most penalised by tax.
Britain has a problem. People must accept that those who raise the country's productivity and its wealth level have to be rewarded. Taking risks is not a job like a brain surgeon, or architect. You can stop doing it any time. I have, I regret to say. The reason is undoubtedly Gotdon Brown.
If they raise the rate to 50%, that will translate to 73% with nat Ins added on. So I would need to pay £220,000 to put £60,000 in my pocket. Do they think I'm mad?
I have paid far less tax since Gordon Brown starting raising taxes. In fact they keep sending investigators round to try to see where all their money has gine. They really don't have a clue. If the p[urpose of tax is to raise more money, they should cut the rate. BUt of course the purpose is not that at all. They want to flatten wealth levels.
They won't make me poorer. People like me just go - to where people want us, and allow us to be free. That's the main motivation in people running busionesses - to be free of all this crap, and people like Harriet Harman.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Cameron Should Dump Hague
washing our dirty linnen in public is not totally a bad idea. people haven't seen an MP taking on a party leader and winning for decades. It's actually very interesting and refreshing.
Brady has seen what's obviously nonsense about the grammar school policy, and he has rightly made his stand on that.
But he hasn't seen how to place Cameron in a good position, or fend off potential enemies for him. It's good to give your opponent an escape route when you've beaten them - especially if that's your party leader. AFter all, who will be implementing any policy once it's all been thrashed out?
Cameron will have to accept that he's failed in his attempt at a 'Clause 4' with grammar game, and that education policy is becoming the business of the Parliamentary Party as a whole. In fact he's had a Clause 4 in reverse. He tried to ape the Blair system of controlling all policy from the top, with media support sewn up. People are sick of it. Cameron's experienced the opposite - the policy he was trying to ram through has unravelled before his eyes.
It's actually a credit to Cameron and the Conservatives that his MP's feel they can speak out without being dstroyed as they would be inside Labour. Brady need not accuse Cameron so much while making his point. Cameron's an intelligent and sensitive persona, and while he's surrounded himself with a few ne'er do wells like William Hague, he is still a good leader. Cameron will ultimately build a better team, but he needs to go through a bit of fire to see that Hague isn't much use when it comes down to it.
Brady should congratulate Cameron on promoting so many new policy ideas in his Policy Review departments, or something, and present the COnservatives as the Party willing to discuss things, and look for the best solutions as a Party, and not allow a control freak to dominate all discussions. In a way, he could lead the process of stopping the media/control freakery of the Blair years and be more gracious. That would establish him as a major figure. Maybe he'll change his tune a bit, but all credit to him for putting up such a good fight and winning.
Now he needs to realise he's won, and give Cameron a route to move forward.
Brady has seen what's obviously nonsense about the grammar school policy, and he has rightly made his stand on that.
But he hasn't seen how to place Cameron in a good position, or fend off potential enemies for him. It's good to give your opponent an escape route when you've beaten them - especially if that's your party leader. AFter all, who will be implementing any policy once it's all been thrashed out?
Cameron will have to accept that he's failed in his attempt at a 'Clause 4' with grammar game, and that education policy is becoming the business of the Parliamentary Party as a whole. In fact he's had a Clause 4 in reverse. He tried to ape the Blair system of controlling all policy from the top, with media support sewn up. People are sick of it. Cameron's experienced the opposite - the policy he was trying to ram through has unravelled before his eyes.
It's actually a credit to Cameron and the Conservatives that his MP's feel they can speak out without being dstroyed as they would be inside Labour. Brady need not accuse Cameron so much while making his point. Cameron's an intelligent and sensitive persona, and while he's surrounded himself with a few ne'er do wells like William Hague, he is still a good leader. Cameron will ultimately build a better team, but he needs to go through a bit of fire to see that Hague isn't much use when it comes down to it.
Brady should congratulate Cameron on promoting so many new policy ideas in his Policy Review departments, or something, and present the COnservatives as the Party willing to discuss things, and look for the best solutions as a Party, and not allow a control freak to dominate all discussions. In a way, he could lead the process of stopping the media/control freakery of the Blair years and be more gracious. That would establish him as a major figure. Maybe he'll change his tune a bit, but all credit to him for putting up such a good fight and winning.
Now he needs to realise he's won, and give Cameron a route to move forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
