+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Gordon Brown

  1. #1
    Elephant TheFlame's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    London, UK (Male)
    Posts
    916

    Default Gordon Brown

    Gordon Brown's had another awful week.
    • He actually managed to get defeated in Parliament by a combination of Lib Dems, Tories and 27 Labour rebels over the Gurkhas' right of residence. It's the first time that's happened since 1978.
      [/*:m:ru4r2bx1]
    • He was ridiculed for his 'MPs Expenses' video on YouTube, then had to backslide when it became apparent he was highly likely to lose that vote as well.
      [/*:m:ru4r2bx1]
    • He made a fool of himself at the end of PM's Questions, walking out of the chamber and having to be called back because he'd forgotten he had a statement to make. [/*:m:ru4r2bx1]

    Furthermore, it's predicted that Labour are going to receive a drubbing at the European Elections in June and are going to be engulfed in scandal in July when all the MPs Expenses receipts are publicised.

    Today, even the usually Labour-loyal Polly Toynbee in the Guardian has slammed the PM.

    Will Brown resign or be pushed out? If so, who will replace him? If not, just how bad will Labour's defeat in 2010 be?
    I didn't make the world this way, it was like this when I got here

  2. #2
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default Re: Gordon Brown

    Brown will not go without being pushed and given that the rest of the cabinet has started rallying around him, there is no chance of him being pushed.

    After all, the next person on the list is Harriet Harperson, and no-one, blairite or brownite, wants her in charge.

    Labour's problems is that there really is no-one to replace him.

    David Milliband - after his hesletine moment and the banana - not a chance
    Jacqui Smith - The only person who can screw up more than Gordon
    Jack Straw - An outside chance that would probably be accepted by the populace but not by Labour.

    Labour is going to lose badly in the local and EU elections, but the scale of defeat will give the main talking points. Brown's biggest worry is watching Cameron and Clegg acting together on issues like the Gurkhas and MP's pay and really hoping they will not be doing the same in the next election.

    BTW Cameron has already had a go at the Tories about expenses, so they will be ready for when they are released. Labour have a lot to fear, as it might be expected for the Tories to use MP's largesse, but Labour is supposed to represent the common man. It's going to look really bad, when their hands are shown deeper in the trough.

    BTW Polly Toynbee has totally lost the plot over the last couple of years and I think the Guardian give her a column because she is great for ratings. She cannot decide whether the current labour leader is the best thing since sliced bread or a raging lunatic. I would love to see what would happen if you put Ann Coulter and Polly Toynbee in a room together.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  3. #3
    Elephant TheFlame's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    London, UK (Male)
    Posts
    916

    Default Re: Gordon Brown

    The only Minister I can see as a credible replacement leader for Brown is the one Toynbee mentions in her column today - Alan Johnson.

    ETA: I'm looking forward to the expenses release. It's going to be good for at least a week of utter political mayhem, and Labour will as you say come off by far the worst.

    ETA II: I just realised I should have posted this in the NewsRoom.
    I didn't make the world this way, it was like this when I got here

  4. #4
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    136

    Default Re: Gordon Brown

    May 2006: a combination of an increasingly unpopular leader, accusations of corruption, Home Office incompetence and a resurgent Opposition front bench meant that Labour had been lagging in the polls for months. Any Labour MPs thinking back to that time will remember what happened next: the Brown bounce. Suddenly, Labour were on top. And stayed there for three months (until the economy went south and Brown mishandled the snap election question). That sort of ratings improvement has got to look very tempting right now.

    I don't think it's that simple. As CIAS says, who's the replacement? There was some criticism of the "coronation" aspect of Brown's election, but it gave a nice, clean transition and crucially, everyone knew what to expect. After 10 years at No. 11, Brown was a known quantity and had a lot of kudos due to the solid performance of the economy. (Warning: the foregoing may exceed your daily dose of heavy dramatic irony.) There's no heir apparent now, however, so whoever gets it won't have the automatic trust of the people. Johnson comes across very well, and I think he's probably pretty capable, but he doesn't have that instant credibility.

    Secondly, given that there's no automatic choice and that you don't get to the front bench by lacking ambition, there's presumably going to be a genuine leadership contest. Now, this could be good for Labour if a) it leads to some coherent debate about Labour's policies and b) it produces a clear winner, but on current form you would expect more in the way of personality politics, "anonymous" smearing and a sharply divided party.

    This brings us to the third point - timing. There's a year to go. Done by the book, a challenge to Brown would involve a) collecting 70 MPs signatures, b) then moving a motion to elect a new leader at the party conference, then c), a month long election. So several months of consipiracy theories, palace intrigue, self-destructive overt and covert campaigning before you get your shiny new leader. Who will then have all of 6 months to make his mark on the parliamentary party, impress the electorate and fire up the constituency party members who's canvassing, leaflet-dropping and local activism make all the difference on the ground.

    I don't see it. 2006 is not 2009. One of the big changes is that Labour have fundamentally lost credibility. The Brown bounce happened because, although people were finally pissed off with Blair and disenchanted by stories of sleaze and incompetence, Labour was still seen as the party of government. Now that's just not true. The shine has come off, and people are having to be convinced to vote for them instead of convinced not to. Simply getting a new leader won't change that. The Law of Diminishing Returns applies here: one change of leader looks like a fresh start - changing again looks like you're out of ideas.

    If I were advising Labour... well, I'd probably quit. But if I couldn't, I'd suggest that they stop dicking about with petty politics and start trying to govern. Step one to getting elected (or not being whitewashed, depending on how ambitious you're being) is to show people you've got a coherent policy platform. If you've got that, having the right leader becomes cosmetic.
    amrussell on SDMB

  5. #5
    Stegodon Walker in Eternity's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Spiral Politic
    Posts
    390

    Default Re: Gordon Brown

    Great post Stanislaus.

    I am not a fan of Gordon Brown but, given that the Conservative Party under David Cameron have just taken a huge U-turn and returned to 1980s fiscal policy in the style of Thatcher, I hope he turns it around. Otherwise it will be another round of cuts which will result in a reduction in healthcare while not getting rid of all the pointless middle managers who don't do a great deal, but who seem to be a growing breed in this country.

    It would be an almost impossible task for the Labour party to get rid of Brown and win the next general election. Which they need to do if we want to avoid the 80s and 90s all over again.

    However, it may do the Labour party some good to spend some time in opposition as it may give them time to reflect on the corruption encouraged in the Blair/Brown era and to re-discover their direction.
    Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth - Marcus Aurelius

  6. #6
    aka ivan the not-quite-as-terrible ivan astikov's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    moston, UK.
    Posts
    4,779

    Default Re: Gordon Brown

    Whatever mistakes the Labour Party may have made, I've yet to hear an explanation of how the Tories would have fared any better, given the circumstances.

    And in true 'bringing it down to personalities' fashion, how could anyone want that smarmy fucker, Cameron, leading our country? I heard Obama described him as a 'political lightweight', and that's being way too polite, imo.
    To sleep, perchance to experience amygdalocortical activation and prefrontal deactivation.

  7. #7
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default Re: Gordon Brown

    Quote Originally posted by Walker in Eternity
    Great post Stanislaus.

    I am not a fan of Gordon Brown but, given that the Conservative Party under David Cameron have just taken a huge U-turn and returned to 1980s fiscal policy in the style of Thatcher, I hope he turns it around. Otherwise it will be another round of cuts which will result in a reduction in healthcare while not getting rid of all the pointless middle managers who don't do a great deal, but who seem to be a growing breed in this country.
    So what about the fact that Labour are about to make cuts which are as great as anything Thatcher did. Not to mention that in order to get the country back on track without the huge borrowing deficit they will have to cut them further.

    And they will not be getting rid of the managers who spend all their time reporting back to the government on what targets they have to meet.

    Or is it ok if they make them, as long as it is not the Tories doing it?
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  8. #8
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    By a Crystal Palace
    Posts
    194

    Default Re: Gordon Brown

    Quote Originally posted by ivan astikov
    Whatever mistakes the Labour Party may have made, I've yet to hear an explanation of how the Tories would have fared any better, given the circumstances.
    I don't know, just going by what they've said themselves -
    Not given the rebate back to the EU. There's £3Bn a year better off.
    Cancel ID cards. £50M better off.
    Not increased taxation to 50% - causing the estimated loss of 25,000 of our richest people abroad (including Micheal Caine). More jobs, more investment.
    Not implemented Section 6-60 and IR35, saving the cost of 1,462 unsuccessful prosecutions (and admittedly losing us the gain of the three they won) each costing about half a million pounds, each to recover a few thousand in unpaid backdated tax. Also driving a lot of contractors into overseas umbrellas not paying UK taxes.
    I could keep running through their site, but I find the Tory webpage depressing.

    Quote Originally posted by ivan astikov
    And in true 'bringing it down to personalities' fashion, how could anyone want that smarmy fucker, Cameron, leading our country? I heard Obama described him as a 'political lightweight', and that's being way too polite, imo.
    Because there aren't any other options, and that's a damning indictment of the state of British politics at the moment.

    Hopefully Cameron will prove to be "a political lightweight" in the same way Thatcher "wasn't a career woman".

  9. #9
    Stegodon Walker in Eternity's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Spiral Politic
    Posts
    390

    Default Re: Gordon Brown

    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit
    So what about the fact that Labour are about to make cuts which are as great as anything Thatcher did. Not to mention that in order to get the country back on track without the huge borrowing deficit they will have to cut them further.

    And they will not be getting rid of the managers who spend all their time reporting back to the government on what targets they have to meet.

    Or is it ok if they make them, as long as it is not the Tories doing it?
    Nope it's just as bad whoever makes them. I think one of Blair's worst legacies is the creation of many levels of bureaucracy and middle managers and police paperwork.

    Whether the cuts are made by Labour or the Tories is irrelevant, but I think they will be less severe under Labour as the Tories seem to have reverted to their old style.
    Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth - Marcus Aurelius

  10. #10
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default Re: Gordon Brown

    Quote Originally posted by Walker in Eternity
    Nope it's just as bad whoever makes them. I think one of Blair's worst legacies is the creation of many levels of bureaucracy and middle managers and police paperwork.

    Whether the cuts are made by Labour or the Tories is irrelevant, but I think they will be less severe under Labour as the Tories seem to have reverted to their old style.
    The problem is that Labour will not be stern enough when making cuts leaving a large bloated mess as they always have done along with the huge deficit.
    Certain Labour spending plans the Tories have agreed with, but other than that it is up for examination.

    You know, it makes it easier to get relected if you don't make too many cuts for your core voting base that you have spent the last ten plus years building up aka the Civil Service and those on welfare.

    Cynical, me?
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  11. #11
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    136

    Default Re: Gordon Brown

    I keep on hearing various scare stories about the effect of the 50% rate, but I'm not convinced. The very richest people living here don't pay tax anyway; the number of people who are truly free to transplant themselves to new countries is probably pretty small (e.g. a 45 yr old partner in a London law-firm probably earns more than £150K - but where's he going to go?); anyone seriously rich living in London rather than, say, New York has already accepted a higher rate of tax in return for whatever lifestyle benefits they feel apply. The endowment effect works in our favour here.

    Finally, jobs and investment that derive from rich people are not driven by personal income tax - if people derive their fabulous wealth from British-based businesses, they're going to keep those businesses running. Ferrari salesmen and £20K/night call girls might miss their personal spending, I suppose, but the idea that our economy lives or dies according to how many crumbs fall from the table of the plutocrats is one I have trouble swallowing.
    amrussell on SDMB

  12. #12
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    136

    Default Re: Gordon Brown

    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit
    Quote Originally posted by Walker in Eternity
    Nope it's just as bad whoever makes them. I think one of Blair's worst legacies is the creation of many levels of bureaucracy and middle managers and police paperwork.

    Whether the cuts are made by Labour or the Tories is irrelevant, but I think they will be less severe under Labour as the Tories seem to have reverted to their old style.
    The problem is that Labour will not be stern enough when making cuts leaving a large bloated mess as they always have done along with the huge deficit.
    Certain Labour spending plans the Tories have agreed with, but other than that it is up for examination.

    You know, it makes it easier to get relected if you don't make too many cuts for your core voting base that you have spent the last ten plus years building up aka the Civil Service and those on welfare.

    Cynical, me?
    According to this poll, Labour support among public-sector workers is only 26% - less than for private sector workers. And Tories do better among the out-of-work, although this includes retirees as well as unemployed. So if Labour had been trying to build up a dependent client base, they've failed massively.

    I've just found this article by David Davis in today's FT, which (although he is of course only a humble backbencher) gives some idea of what cuts the Tories are thinking of. (Incidentally, isn't it indicative that an OP about Gordon Brown has naturally segued into a discussion of what the Tories would do in government? Should we get back on topic?).

    There's some silliness - "symbolical" attacks on fat cats, which are apparently not cheap politics if it's public sector fat cats - but some bigger ideas. A couple that stand out are:

    Pay and recruitment freeze in the public sector: Pay freeze maybe - but I can't imagine people going for a reduction in police, nurses, prision guards etc., which is what a recruitment as opposed to headcount freeze implies.

    Cutting the salary for junior doctors: of all the deserving targets, we pick frontline medical staff? Really?

    Saving £8-10bn (now we're talking real money) in welfare: The plan is to cut "welfare for the wealthy" while protecting "the worst off". This is all motherhood and apple-pie - who is "worst off", who is losing money, how much are they losing? Given that he's just attacked tax credits for being bureaucratic and inefficient, planning more mean-testing across more benefits seems a little odd.

    Fair's fair: cut's do have to be made, and there's at least some detail of what will rather than won't be done. But particularly for critical areas like health and welfare, I'd far rather the knife were being weilded by people who haven't been itching to carve the whole thing up for decades.
    amrussell on SDMB

  13. #13
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default Re: Gordon Brown

    Quote Originally posted by Stanislaus
    According to this poll, Labour support among public-sector workers is only 26% - less than for private sector workers. And Tories do better among the out-of-work, although this includes retirees as well as unemployed. So if Labour had been trying to build up a dependent client base, they've failed massively.
    Yes, Labour have failed massively, both in gaining support and in running the country.

    Quote Originally posted by Stanislaus
    I've just found this article by David Davis in today's FT, which (although he is of course only a humble backbencher) gives some idea of what cuts the Tories are thinking of. (Incidentally, isn't it indicative that an OP about Gordon Brown has naturally segued into a discussion of what the Tories would do in government? Should we get back on topic?).

    There's some silliness - "symbolical" attacks on fat cats, which are apparently not cheap politics if it's public sector fat cats - but some bigger ideas. A couple that stand out are:

    Pay and recruitment freeze in the public sector: Pay freeze maybe - but I can't imagine people going for a reduction in police, nurses, prision guards etc., which is what a recruitment as opposed to headcount freeze implies.

    Cutting the salary for junior doctors: of all the deserving targets, we pick frontline medical staff? Really?

    Saving £8-10bn (now we're talking real money) in welfare: The plan is to cut "welfare for the wealthy" while protecting "the worst off". This is all motherhood and apple-pie - who is "worst off", who is losing money, how much are they losing? Given that he's just attacked tax credits for being bureaucratic and inefficient, planning more mean-testing across more benefits seems a little odd.

    Fair's fair: cut's do have to be made, and there's at least some detail of what will rather than won't be done. But particularly for critical areas like health and welfare, I'd far rather the knife were being weilded by people who haven't been itching to carve the whole thing up for decades.
    David Davies, the guy who ran against David Cameron and lost and is now stuck on the outside after his resignation. Here's a large dose of salt to go with it. Next you will be quoting John Redwood. :wink:

    However, nearly all private sector companies have pay and recruitment freezes going on at the moment and are suffering. Which should the public sector be any different. Why should the public sector continue to have money thrown at it, money generated by the private sector, when the rest of the country is suffering.

    If you think the Tories are going to spell it out for you now, you are mistaken. Given what happened with Inheritance Tax and other things, if he had a chance Gordon Brown would be incorporating them into the next budget.

    Frankly, I would rather have a party who is not afraid to wield the knife, than a party in fear of its funding from the unions which will make them hesitate to make the cuts required.

    Not to mention the following possiblity of requiring an 8-10p rise in tax to cover spending. Welcome to old Labour, the party of high taxation and massive public spending, except this time we don't have the money to spend.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  14. #14
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    136

    Default Re: Gordon Brown

    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit
    David Davies, the guy who ran against David Cameron and lost and is now stuck on the outside after his resignation. Here's a large dose of salt to go with it. Next you will be quoting John Redwood. :wink:
    ...and he just happened to get a couple of columns in the FT to prattle on in, did he? Were they short of material? Senior backbencher + former chair of the Public Accounts Committee + FT article = leadership flying a kite.

    However, nearly all private sector companies have pay and recruitment freezes going on at the moment and are suffering. Which should the public sector be any different. Why should the public sector continue to have money thrown at it, money generated by the private sector, when the rest of the country is suffering.
    "Nearly all" private sector companies are doing nothing of the kind. There are currently (Mar 09) 450K vacancies in the economy, 284K in Manufacturing, Construction, Energy & Water, Distribution Hotels & Restaurants, Finance and Business Services(!) and Transport/Communications combined - ONS doesn't split out private/public sector for Vacancies, but I think it's fair to assume that the clear majority of those sectors are private. It does make the split for earnings, however. Excluding bonuses, public sector earnings are growing at 3.8% this quarter vs yr ago. Private sector is at 3.1%. Yes, less, but not a pay freeze. An actual recruitment freeze, with nearly all companies doing no hiring at all, making int impossible for anyone to find a job, would be vastly, vastly catastrophic, far beyond where we are now. Let's not get carried away with the doomsaying.

    Your second point I don't follow. If the private sector is struggling, that is the best time to push the public sector. Otherwise your pursuit of "fairness" just means there's less investment, less jobs, less wealth - and the "rest" of the country suffers more. That's why it's vital that we keep spending going this year and cut in growth - and it's why the Tories are exactly wrong to say they'd cut now.

    Oh, and regarding wealth creation, you may be interested in this quote:

    There are some who see a clear dividing line through our economy, with the wealth creators of the private sector on one side who pay for the wealth consumers of the public sector on the other. This analysis is much too simplistic.

    Many public sector employees contribute directly to wealth creation. Teachers are wealth creators because they nurture the human capital that fuels enterprise. Nurses are wealth creators because they keep the nation healthy and working. Police officers are wealth creators because by keeping our streets safe they allow businesses to operate freely.
    What left-wing, statist, economic ignoramus spouted this pile of obvious dreck? That's right, David Cameron .

    If you think the Tories are going to spell it out for you now, you are mistaken. Given what happened with Inheritance Tax and other things, if he had a chance Gordon Brown would be incorporating them into the next budget.
    It's already been established that public spending is the dividing line, and that the Tories want to make deeper cuts than Labour. Brown and Labour have set their face against doing what the Tories say is necessary. So there isn't any need to keep things super-secret; they need to come out and explain to voters exactly what is going to happen to public spending and why. You know, try and actually win the argument on its own merits. Why hide a good idea?

    Frankly, I would rather have a party who is not afraid to wield the knife, than a party in fear of its funding from the unions which will make them hesitate to make the cuts required.

    Not to mention the following possiblity of requiring an 8-10p rise in tax to cover spending. Welcome to old Labour, the party of high taxation and massive public spending, except this time we don't have the money to spend.
    You do know that this "possibility" is the deliberately chosen extreme, don't you? It rests on the assumption of no cuts in public spending. Given that all parties recognise the need for public spending cuts, using this calculation as a prediction of what is actually going to happen makes as much sense as predicting that I'm going to go home tonight and eat my baby son. After all, we know I'll have to eat something and we can assume that I won't get food out the fridge.
    amrussell on SDMB

  15. #15
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default Re: Gordon Brown

    Rather than divert the thread further, can someone please tell Gordon Brown not to use Youtube. Please.

    Oh and NOW he decides to support Joanna Lumley, listen to the people and MPs and assist with helping the ghurkas.

    I wonder what he will do next.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  16. #16
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    By a Crystal Palace
    Posts
    194

    Default Re: Gordon Brown

    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit
    I wonder what he will do next.
    Get caught with his nose in the trough and rather than issue a public apology, start a witchhunt for the source.

    Well at least we now have an idea why he was so determined not to let there be a cross-party meeting on expenses. I wonder what happened to all those rules he brought in to protect whistleblowers, or is it different when the whistle's blown on him?

  17. #17
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    136

    Default Re: Gordon Brown

    How much money did he embezzle?
    amrussell on SDMB

  18. #18
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    By a Crystal Palace
    Posts
    194

    Default Re: Gordon Brown

    Quote Originally posted by Stanislaus
    How much money did he embezzle?
    Check the papers. That's what the Commons have asked the police to investigate.

    Quite a few in the Cabinet seem to have been doing creative accounting. If I gamed my expenses like they seem to have done I'd be fired, and probably prosecuted for the repayment.

    ETA: "embezzle" is an interesting choice of words. "Nose in the trough" is usually used whenever an MP is taking advantage of their position for personal gain. Why do you think gamed expenses, and a possible criminal offence, can only be embezzlement? Corrupt, Immoral and unethical yes, but why do you jump to embezzlement? Surely Theft or Fraud are also possible charges that may be investigated.

  19. #19
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default Re: Gordon Brown

    Quote Originally posted by Stanislaus
    How much money did he embezzle?
    It's not so much embezzlement, but just the scale of what has been claimed back at taxpayer expense.

    I wish the taxpayer would do up my house at the same rate as has been claimed by MPs.

    Let's see, Gordon Brown paying his brother £6.5k for cleaning and then claiming it back.
    Interesting Council Tax claims from Jack Straw,
    Hazel Blears having lots of furniture.

    A general inability to work out which is their primary and which is their secondary residence and stick to a convincing story. Gordon Brown has not backed his ministers in public but is still insisting that they have done nothing wrong. The rest of the country survives off a salary, MPs get a salary and a very long list of things they can claim back.

    They have not done anything wrong, the system is there to be used, but the sheer scale of it is just amazing.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  20. #20
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    136

    Default Re: Gordon Brown

    Embezzle, Defraud, Thieve, Misappropriate, Half-Inch - I'm speaking colloquially here.

    All the stories (and today's about Tory front-benchers) about flipping, furniture, council tax, CGT avoidance are appalling. It reveals a shocking scale of contempt for their office, a blase attitude to corruption and some pretty flimsy moral fibre. All this, "it was within the rules" bullshit just makes MPs look like conniving, money-grubbing toe-rags with no more sense of public service than a benefit fraudster. Call out Straw, or Blears, or Prescott a sticky-fingered spiv and I'll agree whole-heartedly.

    But I don't think Gordon Brown falls into that category. If you look at the details in the Telegraph story linked above, Downing St have released the contract with the cleaning agency, and the details of how payments broke down over a little more than two years. It works out to c.£450 a month to clean two flats. This is not, for London, an unusual sum. (We looked into getting a cleaner when my wife fell pregnant. Ye Gods, what a racket.) It looks bad, I agree. It looks terrible. The equation of "large sum of money" + "unusual financial arrangement" = "weasel on the make" holds true most of the time, so it's easy to assume that it's true this time. But I bet that when this is investigated properly, the only people who made out were the cleaning agency.

    Now, there's another discussion over whether we want MPs/front-benchers to be spending money on cleaners instead of hoovering themselves. Frankly, I don't mind who does the hoovering in their flats. It's well understood that front-bench politics means a minimum of 12 hour days; I don't particularly feel the need, as as taxpayer, to force the Secretary of State for Health to spend time on cleaning when they could be doing their job.

    None of this is to say that GB is some sort of saint. On the contrary, the man has some major personality flaws. But I don't think petty financial chicanery is one of them. Ego, stubborness, temper, close-mindedness, yes. Fiddling expenses, no.
    amrussell on SDMB

  21. #21
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default Re: Gordon Brown

    Quote Originally posted by Stanislaus
    None of this is to say that GB is some sort of saint. On the contrary, the man has some major personality flaws. But I don't think petty financial chicanery is one of them. Ego, stubborness, temper, close-mindedness, yes. Fiddling expenses, no.
    You're right about that, Gordon Brown prefers financial incompetance on a global scale to just fiddling his expenses.

    Anyone want some British gold, going cheap. :wink:
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  22. #22
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    136

    Default Re: Gordon Brown

    Exactly! Say what you will about the man (no, go on, it'll be therapeutic), but he's not a small canvas type.
    amrussell on SDMB

  23. #23
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default Re: Gordon Brown

    Quote Originally posted by Stanislaus
    Exactly! Say what you will about the man (no, go on, it'll be therapeutic), but he's not a small canvas type.
    Well he's very good at making up.

    Apologising on behalf of all politicians for being immoral, expense driven swine regardless of whether they are or not.

    And by having his beauty secrets left in a black cab by an aide.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  24. #24
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    136

    Default Re: Gordon Brown

    Quote from the Wire:

    "There ain't no luck at all to that boy."
    amrussell on SDMB

  25. #25
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default Re: Gordon Brown

    When your chief cheerleader from the Blair years says it's time to go, it's time to go.

    Polly Toynbee has now decided that Alan Johnson is now the way to go. After all, Gordon made the rich richer and the poor poorer.

    This woman has more faces than Janus.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts