- This topic has 222 replies, 56 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
I believe there were conditions, Clive, but the banks have simply chosen to ignore them, but like the poker player with most of his stack in the middle what else can Brown do but continue to subsidise them?
I certainly don’t envy his position at the moment, even if his appalling lack of judgement and dishonesty over the last decade has helped fuel the fire.
Equitrack,
Your wee small hours post was excellent.
Plenty of food for thought, thanks
He bites his nails, does strange things with his mouth and constantly adjusts his file at PM questions time. Utterly bonkers, if you ask me.
Our unelected leader Brroon has decided to change the Union Jack to a symbol that has more meaning…
Yes! Its going to be changed to a condom.
Well lets face it, it more accuratly reflects the governments political stance.
A condom allowes for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks and gives you a sence of security whilst your being screwed.
Very funny LM. In fact, if you don’t mind, I’m going to copy it and post in a political blog. Cheers for the smile you gave me.
How Brown plans to borrow more money than the market would ever let him?
By Fraser Nelson at The Spectatot Coffee Shop:-"In PMQs today, Gordon Brown described the era of nationalised banks as a “wholly new world”. How right he is. The collision between the worlds of politics and banking has created much potential for mischief and I look at some of it in my political column for tomorrow’s magazine including what for me is the single most chilling development since the nationalisations started – but I’ll save that for when the magazine comes out tomorrow.
For now, I’d like to share with you another suspicious aspect. For a while in Coffee House we’ve been saying that the markets wouldn’t let Brown borrow more: what if the Arabs and Chinese tire of buying all the debt? This presumed Brown’s hands would be tied by the market. But, as so often, I underestimate him. Now he has his new toys, he can tweak banking regulations to have the nationalised British banks buy his crappy debt instead, and thereby divert the nation’s savings into the Treasury’s coffers. And let’s not forget what the £150 billion “quantitative easing” package does – provides money that is to be spent on, well, government debt. Using the G20 as political cover, Brown now has the tools he needs to launch a massive pre-election tax cut – and post the bill to a Conservative government. So QE could turn out to be the prelude of what economists describe as “helicopter money”.
Complexity is the second-last refuge of the scoundrel (pension funds are the first) and all the banking arrangements make it harder than ever to work out what Brown is up to. But please, bear with me. Look at the below graph. The rest of the world (green line) is running as fast as it can from UK government debt. Ditto the British investors. In any other circumstances, this would leave Brown with a major funding problem – and we’d be in Dennis Healey IMF bailout territory. But look at the grey lines. These nationalised banks have been gripped by a mysterious sense of patriotism and have started to buy Brown’s IOU notes.
In the old days, when banks lent money to people and not vice versa, UK banks would scour the globe looking for the best investments. Now, having been net sellers from 1998-2007, the British holdings of UK gilts and t-bills has surged by £30bn in the last three months – the highest since data began in 1997. No surprise, you might argue: flight to safety. But it’s funny how foreign and non-bank UK buyers seen to be able to find several better forms of safety than buying the debt of a desperate government that has just started to print money. As he so rightly says, it’s a whole new world."
(Sorry I’m unable to copy the graph. This shows how, whilst the "old" sources of UK debt purchase – China. Middle East etc.- are reducing their buying – the UK banks are suddenly gobbling it up.)Only lasts about 3 mins, give it a listen.
And this one…….
The Sun: SCUM
I didn’t think my loathing of this newspaper could get any greater but I was wrong. Absolutely disgusting antics on this issue. Just plain nasty and vindictive. Horrible.
I guess the mother’s irrationality can be forgiven due to the circumstances (although if she was that grief stricken I’m not sure recording the telephone conversation would have been at the forefront of her mind) but the gutter journalist’s that have pandered to Murdoch’s agenda should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
Can’t help but feel for Gordon Brown
Given that, mistaking Janes for James or Jones is hardly a hanging offence.A most unfortunate error that he, or particularly his ‘team’ really should have spotted, but no more than that.
Much of the stick Brown gets is wholly deserved; this isn’t
No idea what shyt-stirring the Sun has been up to, nor do I want to know but they have an inglorious history of stooping lower than the lowest so nothing would surprise me.
I think most here know I am absolutely no fan at all of Brown, by any stretch of the imagination – but even I can’t help feeling sorry for him on this one.
To my mind he was trying to do the "right" thing – and I’ll tell you one thing his writing is a hell of a lot more legible than mine.
Talk about much ado about nothing.
As for recording the phone convesation and The Sun then publishing a transcript – that is beneath contempt.
I’m not too sure what to make of the Mother’s part in this and just how much she has been used as a pawn or manipulated – if that is the case then words fail me.
A wholly unsavoury affair.
Wouldn’t disagree that this has been a tasteless affair, but I find it hard to summon up much sympathy for Brown.
He and his clique have been perfectly happy to use the tabloid press to blacken the name of anyone that got in their way or seemed to disagree with his narrow view of the world, even supposed colleagues within New Labour.
He who lives by the sword ……….
Quite amazing how many parallels there are between the career of Gordon Brown and that of King Charles the First. Though of course, Charles wasn’t lucky enough to be able to take up a highly paid job after he’d ruined the country!
AP
Here, alas, is the perfect reaffirmation of what the
Scum
is capable of doing once it’s withdrawn its support from a political party or leader. It seems unlikely they would have contemplated telegraphing the matter so widely 12 or even six months ago.
I have infinitely more time for Mr Brown than the obsequious git that preceded him, and have genuinely hoped he’d be able to hold his own better once finally becoming PM. Unfortunately, though, he is possessive of a softer underbelly and far less media savvy than any PM under whom I think I’ve ever lived.
The
Scum
knows this, probably always has, and will be leaving no stone unturned in finding some equally clumsy, hapless "Brownism" they can pounce on hereafter, regardless of how much more moral bankruptcy it might betray in the process.
I too share PaulO’s concerns as to how manipulated Mrs Janes may have been. It seems remarkable how quickly her disposition towards Mr Brown changed from unforgiveable to forgiven yesterday teatime, as if she’d been told the boot had been put in enough now to serve purpose.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Agree with the sentiments posted on here. Brown doesn’t deserve pillorying for this. (He’s still a treacherous, lying, disingenious, tratorious, cowardly **** though.)
(He’s still a treacherous, lying, disingenious, tratorious, cowardly [expletive] though.)
Insomniac,
"Tratorious" – you mean he eats in Italian restaurants. My God, things are even worse than I suspected!
AP
The Daily Star coverage was even worse and were still banging on about it today using the word "CLUMSY" Brown in the headline and getting a supposed handwriting expert to show why Gordon Brown is not the righht man for the job of PM cause hewasnt bothered about his erratic writing etc. No mention of his eyes though.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.