Sunday, Feb 07, 2010
Mwahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
The Telegraph: Gordon Brown to attend crisis talks over Greece
The Prime Minister will preach a “tough love” message for Greece and along with the other major leaders will urge the country to slash its spending over the next three years.
Posted by devo @ 10:45 PM (2214 views) Add Comment
42 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. enuii said...
I see from the quote at the bottom of the article that the chief puppetmaster himself hasn't got a clue about what to do; “Heads of government need to set the direction and pace and the Commission needs to be a much more active implementing body that we’ve seen in recent months.”
Plus can't see how our illustrious PM can preach to anyone with has false claim (as per caption) of lifting the economy from recession.
Anyone spotted any more political rats leaving the sinking ship yet?
2. freemanphil said...
Again, the agenda here is IMF style austerity to maintain and increase payments to the bankers. This is economic terrorism.
3. markj69 str05 said...
Extract - 'Last week George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, Britain could face the same problems if the Treasury did not act quicker to address Britain’s record £178 billion deficit. Lord Mandelson accused the Conservatives of being “unpatriotic” and talking Britain down.'
“unpatriotic” and talking Britain down - More like talking common sense! I guess they prefer the 'Struthio camelus' approach. Well Gordon, Mandy, et al, just beware your not all being shafted by large corporates whilst you heads in the ground and you @rse is in the air!
4. quiet guy said...
Somebody help me out here. It seems there are two Gordon Browns our there. One is going to save us from the 'international recession' by investing but this doppelganger in Greece says Greece should "slash its spending over the next three years."
Gordon Brown: You have to grow not cut your way out of a recession
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_1fefRytoQ
Take a look. The video is only 03:08 long (sick back ready to hand advised.)
5. mick rupert said...
@quiet guy (4)
I love the comments at the end of that YouTube vid. Overwhelmingly in favour of Gordon to win the General Election. Click on their names and you see most of them are avid Labour supporters.
GORDON HAS SAVED THE WORLD!
6. vacuouspolitician said...
A hypocrite. Words are cheap.
7. icarus said...
Brown will "preach a 'tough love' message for Greece". What exactly does this mean? Don't forget this is the Torygraph speaking. We're all supposed to say "who the f*** is he to tell another country......"(cont. p94). What exactly has been decided about what Brown will do and say, and how does the Ambrosegraph know this? And I'd guess this was largely a matter for eurozone countries anyway, since much of the problem, and any attempt at solution, is bound up with Greece's eurozone membership. Don't forget that Ambrose lives in a smoke-and-mirrors world of hidden agendas. I'd trust him about as much as I'd trust Blair or Brown.
8. freemanphil said...
"Tough Love"
This is Orwell's Ministry of Love, which is actually the opposite. Then you understand that the embrace of family and friends, not government, is what you sought.
9. Samtheman said...
At least, in the person of icarus, there is someone with some insight and clarity, who doesn't "get shafted" by low-quality journalism like the majority of posters on here...
10. sneaker said...
Such a position to lecture from.
And, of course, we can delight in the spectacle of a Socialist leader encouraging vicious spending cuts abroad, when he can't bear to admit that's what's going to happen at home.
The double-standard is the modus operandi.
11. happy mondays said...
Gordon Brown is a CRISIS....
12. hpwatcher said...
@quiet guy (4)
I love the comments at the end of that YouTube vid. Overwhelmingly in favour of Gordon to win the General Election. Click on their names and you see most of them are avid Labour supporters.
GORDON HAS SAVED THE WORLD!
The comments are moderated. I just tried to post an anti Brown one, and it didn't appear!
13. freemanphil said...
Gordon Brown saved the New World Order.
14. Crunchy said...
Is banning free speech via censoring the internet tough love? I warned you about this a long time ago. None listened. D'oh!
How many times do some people have to be right? VINDICATED AGAIN!!!!! : )
Dumbo Brown preaching again LOL. Long live the first amendment! : (
15. 51ck-6-51x said...
So many bash Brown over-and-over, but he is *just* another politician:
He rode his luck (the boom; the 3G license auctions, etc...) and it ran out, I do not understand why anyone believes the next set will fair any better, even though they may appear to. The change we need is never considered as an option, it's brushed under the rug, we get a general election, but where is the vote for rule itself? where is the "I don't want to be ruled by other's law" box? Many posters here talk of engineered circumstance and conspiracies, but it's just the outcome of the ongoing struggle of men who either desire power or genuinely want to do good (even if misguided), some end up national heros and others a mockery regardless of camp, but in the end they all just stumble through.
Surely we should not aim to concentrate responsibility and power into a small subset of people, is this not a mistaken use of the wonderful idea of a democratic system; should we not aim to distribute it instead?
16. happy mondays said...
666, your right he is just another politician, i don't thimk many have faith that others will fair any better & all the time we give control & power to a few & not take resposibility ourselves as a nation, this will happen time & time again as it has been for centuries....
17. freemanphil said...
"Just another politician"
He controls more than 50% of your wealth. Comprised of over 5% inflation, 20% income tax, 6% NI, 17% VAT, tax on car, fuel, council tax, hidden taxes, death tax.
JUST a politician? Hows about the man who makes decisions about how way more than half of your money is spent, bubba.
18. hpwatcher said...
So many bash Brown over-and-over, but he is *just* another politician:
He rode his luck (the boom; the 3G license auctions, etc...) and it ran out, I do not understand why anyone believes the next set will fair any better, even though they may appear to. The change we need is never considered as an option, it's brushed under the rug, we get a general election, but where is the vote for rule itself? where is the "I don't want to be ruled by other's law" box? Many posters here talk of engineered circumstance and conspiracies, but it's just the outcome of the ongoing struggle of men who either desire power or genuinely want to do good (even if misguided), some end up national heros and others a mockery regardless of camp, but in the end they all just stumble through.
Surely we should not aim to concentrate responsibility and power into a small subset of people, is this not a mistaken use of the wonderful idea of a democratic system; should we not aim to distribute it instead?
I disagree. Brown is a very irresponsible individual; I don't think even Darling - or anyone else - would have behaved in such a fashion.
19. 51ck-6-51x said...
hpwatcher said, "Brown is a very irresponsible individual"
I do not deny that.
I just think that to bash him as an individual misses the crux.
Rather than pointing and saying this guy is useless I think we should be considering why such a person can hold such responsibility - it would appear from history that there is no way (or little effective way) to tell if someone is going to be useless in such preeminent positions without empirical evidence of such.
[yes, I know... he shouldn't have become PM without being voted in, and yes that may have stopped this particular occurrence, as a market is a strong thing]
I think the answer is to avoid such centralised decision making processes, to use markets where we can and to research other systems of distributed decision making.
20. 51ck-6-51x said...
FMPsaid, "Hows about the man who makes decisions about how way more than half of your money is spent, bubba."
Indeed.
I did mean "just" with the meaning you infer, i.e. "merely", but not in the sense you infer, i.e. "it's an ignorable consequence", rather I meant "not him and only him, there are many others who would surely be as bad". I attempted to convey this with the use of asterisks, but that was lazy of me, sorry.
21. 51ck-6-51x said...
^^ oops I don't mean
i.e. "it's an ignorable consequence"
I mean
i.e. "it's an ignorable fact"
22. 51ck-6-51x said...
[excuse: I am a little slow today due to Codeine (post surgery)]
23. letthemfall said...
51ck "I just think that to bash him as an individual misses the crux."
I agree. One persistently ludicrous aspect of a democracy is the steady rain of insults on one set of politicians by a proportion of the electorate. So we get words like idiot, irresponsible, fool, along with the plain abuse. It is all meaningless. And it is laughable to think that things will suddenly improve if only we could switch the governing party. Unless one is very young, the evidence against that will have been seen repeatedly. If anything needs to change it is the attitude of the electorate.
24. techieman said...
"He controls more than 50% of your wealth. Comprised of over 5% inflation, 20% income tax, 6% NI, 17% VAT, tax on car, fuel, council tax, hidden taxes, death tax.
JUST a politician? Hows about the man who makes decisions about how way more than half of your money is spent, bubba."
That just misses the point - which is they all do / will.
its not a case of who is the best - its a case of who you THINK is the least worst. In that way there really is little choice. The only difference boils down to how wealth or lack of it is distributed. Obviously no-one has a crystal ball or lives in a parallel dimension BUT i really think, given the same set of circumstances, the Tories wouldn't have acted much different. They MAY have not overstretched us so much but i doubt it.
As for the perennial argument that Labour inherited the economy in decent shape but have gone on to f*ck it right up; i just think that the growth / bubble pattern would have occurred anyway - under whichever party - although it may be that the Tories MAY have put in some controls.... but i doubt it. So in short they would have both f*cked it up.
I can look at a chart and just do some calculations on it, and probabilistically tell you where its going. Long term charts are no different, and the interpretation does not depend on who is in power at the time. How could i be able to do that if the people in charge made a significant difference??
25. techieman said...
i didnt see yrs LTF..... before i posted, but again i have to completely concur. "If anything needs to change it is the attitude of the electorate."
yes its all "our" fault anyway... but that wont ever change will it [thats rhetorical]. I mean its part of the DNA of the "system". In that way the only way there is a NWO is by innocent dereliction of the OWO! Not some grand master design. I cant see how on the one hand you can call Brown a light-weight / idiot / fool etc, and then credit him for being instrumental in the creation of a NWO. That dont make no sense to me.
I could be wrong... of course... but would have to have some evidence (ex youtube videos please) actually shoved in my face, and even then im not sure it would make a whole lot of difference.
26. letthemfall said...
techieman
There was a guest on Start the Week this morning (R4) who talked about politicians and the way they behave to lure our votes. I didn't catch much of it but sounded interesting. The way we elect govts does seem to be based on a kind of chaotic selfishness. As for PMs, thinking about those since 1979, I tend to feel GB is the least bad. Not saying much, but difficult to find much good to say about politics.
27. Chilli said...
I don't think its fair to be fatalistic about the whole process. Failure is not inevitable. Take india. They have not seen the massive explosion of credit the rest of the world has seen. Their property prices have not exploded either and as a result, they will weather the future better than the rest of us.
Something could have been done to prevent this crisis. The problem I think is moral hazard and also that in the UK at least we are deluding ourselves as to the real state of the economy. We need a policitician who can come forward and say things are bad rather than pander to votes all the time.
28. hpwatcher said...
As for the perennial argument that Labour inherited the economy in decent shape but have gone on to f*ck it right up; i just think that the growth / bubble pattern would have occurred anyway - under whichever party - although it may be that the Tories MAY have put in some controls.... but i doubt it. So in short they would have both f*cked it up.
I think some of the above posters must have been asleep for a fair porportion of the past few years....
The fact is that Gordon Brown chose to ignore the bubble in housing and has made a number of other economic blunders - remember the gold?, two wars etc - it's the combination of ALL of his actions that has taken us to where we are now. Labour's first action on coming to power was to spend 750 million on the millenium dome, that set the tone for what was to come - remember that?
In any event, the reality of the mess is still yet to come.
29. techieman said...
hpw - i actually have no axe to grind politically, unlike it seems your good self. I am just saying the Tories would have made VIRTUALLY the same calls on most of this stuff.
millenium dome? Oh lets not be silly now. Grasping at some straws there mate! Remember the Gold? Yes because i bought some round there!!
"In any event, the reality of the mess is still yet to come" - yes agreed, but we would have had this anyway. Same destination just maybe via a slightly different route.
So you think the Tories would have chose NOT to ignore the bubble in housing? Really? Thats just naive. And the wars?? What the tories were supporting the wars and FFS Georgie boy was a Tory! [Republican]. The only people against the war was - as i recall - Claire Short and some of the left wing of the Labour party Tony Benn etc.
30. hpwatcher said...
I am just saying the Tories would have made VIRTUALLY the same calls on most of this stuff.
You can't possible know that - though I believe that you the type who would think that they do.
millenium dome? Oh lets not be silly now. Grasping at some straws there mate! Remember the Gold? Yes because i bought some round there!!
The millenium dome is just one example of the spending, another would be the +25 billion spend on failed IT projects. Look at the increases in governement spending and the size of government too - or have you forgotten about all that too?
So you think the Tories would have chose NOT to ignore the bubble in housing? Really?
Another yawn. Perhaps another Labour chancellor - one who did not have his eyes focussed firmly on the top job - would have behaved rather differently. The point I am making is that Gordon Brown - a man so obsessed with becoming the next prime minister - threw all economic caution to the wind, and keep Labour in power, so that there would be a chance of getting the top job. I think that Darling would have behaved in a far more responsible manner.
31. techieman said...
"I am just saying the Tories would have made VIRTUALLY the same calls on most of this stuff.
You can't possible know that - though I believe that you [are?] the type who would think that they do."
... But you can know that they wouldnt!!! - Thunk what you like, you view has little value as demonstrated on countless occasions.
You have chosen to ignore the War point , of course.... since you have fallen at the first hurdle there. Your premise now seems to support that Gordy knew what he was doing but didn't care, whereas before you intimated he didn't know what he was doing full stop.
By the way this is how you spell consistency. : C - o- n - s- i - s - t - e- n - c - y.
I agree about the size of government, and failed IT projects in eg NHS, but I doubt there is as much room between the two parties as you would like to think. To be honest if i erred to one party over another it would be the Tories... but i don't think the differentiation is large enough fto warrant my support to them.. If you think otherwise then thats really up to you.
32. hpwatcher said...
you view has little value as demonstrated on countless occasions.
That maybe so, but at least I'm not so arrogant and rude as to write something like that.
You have chosen to ignore the War point , of course
Thanks for reminding me. But the question is, would any other government have talked up evidence so flimsy and sold it to the rest of the country? Blair wanted his little war, and to become a great hero, like Churchill. Had the Tories had all the evidence the result would have been different. In any event, not WMD were found, so the evidence that Blair presented was wrong.
By the way this is how you spell consistency. : C - o- n - s- i - s - t - e- n - c - y.
Yawn.
33. rumble said...
"Just another politician"
Changing the steering wheel on a car without brakes. And we'll keep changing the steering as if there will be meaningful change.
Politicians don't act for improvement, they act to stay in office.
34. rumble said...
"The problem I think is moral hazard"
That's a synonym for socialism -
"hello, do what you like, to hell with risk, if it all goes wrong we the gov will bail you out by screwing the taxpayer."
"We need a policitician who can come forward and say things are bad rather than pander to votes all the time."
No. "The whole system is fine, we just need to get the right man for the job." How long has that been failing?
The system is not fine, and the saviour will not arrive.
35. luckyjim said...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk_politics/1009660.stm
December 1994 - Deputy Prime Minister Michael Heseltine announces the government will underwrite all Millennium Exhibition costs, despite a promise the previous year that it would be paid for entirely with private money.
January 1997 - Labour announces that if it wins the imminent general election, it will back the project. Once installed in Number 10, Prime Minister Tony Blair - against cabinet resistance - gives it the go-ahead.
36. letthemfall said...
hpw:"Blair wanted his little war, and to become a great hero, like Churchill. "
hpw:"You can't possible know that - "
Self-answership?
37. hpwatcher said...
Thanks for that lucky jim, but I would just like to remind you - and some of the other posters on this site - of this:-
Gordon Brown's 10 worst financial gaffes:-
1. Taxing dividend payments
2. Selling our gold
3. Tripartite financial regulation
4. Tax credits
5. The £10,000 corporation tax threshold
6. Abolition of the 10p tax rate
7. Failing to spot the housing bubble
8. 50 per cent tax rate
9. Cutting VAT
10. Public-sector borrowing
http://timesbusiness.typepad.com/money_weblog/2009/06/gordons-10-worst-financial-gaffs.html
38. hpwatcher said...
hpw:"Blair wanted his little war, and to become a great hero, like Churchill. "
hpw:"You can't possible know that - "
Self-answership?
Not really, have you not heard Claire Shorts comments?
39. Passingthru said...
I agree with Rumble & Techieman on this, individual members of the ruling classes are a problem, however they are not really the root of "The Problem". The Problem is that the decision makers have far too much power and credence with which to make unintended mistakes, or become corrupt.
Waiting for a fabled omnipotent leader who will right all the wrongs and pave the streets with gold, will NEVER happen, human beings are infirm, idiosyncratic, inconsistent, and certainly not intelligent enough, or wise, for a small number of us to wield total power so as to command and micro-manage everyone else, such that we reach some state of "Utopia".
It is very much a case (given the current consitutional system) of electing the "least worse" government, however, it is not really possible to know before hand how a potential government will shape up, and once a goverment is elected, it is not really possible to stop an incumbent goverment from making bad decisions, because once elected, they have too much power to do almost exactly as they please, for better or for worse.
I'm pretty sure our lives would be better, if we did not have to suffer 5 years worth of laws and taxation by fiat. If decision making power was diffused, I'm pretty sure that we would see an end to vacuous profilgate/vote winning promises of politicians, and "knee jerk" poorly considered legislation.
HPWatcher, I think the point that Techieman was trying to make (rather than a criticism of your ideas and beliefs), is that arguing over individual policy decisions, and political figures, is rather much a side track, and misses the larger problem, and by missing this, the electorate are constantly left pointing fingers in ever decreasing circles.
40. luckyjim said...
41. hpwatcher said...
Thanks. I thought this funny:-
42. luckyjim said...