Sunday, October 14, 2007

Just How Thin is Gordon Brown's Skin?

Several people on the left have said to me in recent weeks that Gordon Brown has the thinnest skin of any politician they know. He takes any reverse really personally and cannot stand personal criticism of any kind, however mild. It sends him into a mixture of fury and depression. These are not good traits in a national leader. He is known to loathe George Osborne with a passion that almost manifests itself physically. After his mauling by Cameron at PMQs I suspect it's his turn now. An anonymous Labour person was quoted in one of the papers this weekend warning the Conservatives to lay off personal attacks on Gordon Brown, otherwise they'd be forced to 'play dirty'. 'It's what we do best', he added rather menacingly. I think it's called 'the new politics'.


Chris Paul said...

If Gordon Brown has thin skin, I'd not be so sure of that myself, it could not be as thin as this post.

The Emperor's New Post in fact. No substance. Just so much warm air.

Anonymous said...

He's always reminded me of the line from Richard III :

"I have a touch of your condition,
Which cannot brook the accent of reproof."

Tom Bower in his biogrpahy of Gordon Brown recounts a particularly revealing encounter:

"For God's sake Gordon," she [Cherie Blair] had shouted with emotion , stop treating Tony with such rudeness. There's more to life than all this.' Brown COULD NOT COPE with an emotional reprimand and had steered clear of his neighbour ever since.'

Anonymous said...

' pull no punches. Pile in, fists flailing. The centrepiece of the Tory platform must be, not an intriguing new scheme for tax-benefit taper, but the fact that Gordon Brown is a great big booby: a hollow man surrounded by a bunch of secret doubters, tired has-beens and timeserving second-raters. Rumble him. Rumble them. Jump up and down on their heads and make their inadequacy famous.'

Matthew Parris' sage advice for dealing with the supersensitive bullying phoney and his arrogant acolytes in No.10.

David Boothroyd said...

What about David Cameron's reaction to reverses? He has a tendency to 'lose it' in private, and it showed when he was interviewed and put under pressure by Joey Jones and Sky News in May 2006. (Details here)

Prodicus said...

Personally, wafer thin. Politically, as thick as a rhino. He may have tantrums but he wil not give in. Blood everywhere, before he goes.

Anonymous said...

otherwise they'd be forced to 'play dirty'.

When did these garden slugs ever play otherwise? Is this idiot trying to subliminally suggest that until now, NuLabourites have played with elegance, grace and generosity of spirit?

Selling honours for immense donations to finance a bankrupt party that its own members don't support any more isn't playing dirty? Who was that woman - an aid, who was arrested two or three times and once, in the nick of time as she had been intending to take her computer to the car crushing company that day?

Destroying evidence isn't playing dirty?

What about all the Labourite jiggery-pokery in Jack Straw's constituency, and others, of islamic postal "voting", as we will call it for want of a more descriptive word in our own language. I think the islamics have a word for it.

Cherie Blair walking through the Green Channel with £15,000 of free gifts from Donna Karen, NY in a "Don't you know who I am?" moment of absent-mindedness?

The jiggery-pokery with NHS figures? And, indeed, the whole NHS edifice? Education figures - everyone gets 5-10 Aswith Distinctions in their A-Levels? The parents are so proud! They will vote socialist forever more for doing so much for their child.

Police 'clear-up' records?

Bare-faced lies about immigration figures from primitive societies and their cost to the taxpayer in free housing, free NHS treatment, free education and free family allowances? Another bit of underhand destabilisation of Britain in order to control it.

The retention of that fat, useless, gross slug John Prescott on a princely salary and with two or three residences - clearly because he has something on Blair.

We could all add to this disgraceful list. What more, I wonder, did this quoted nitwit who said the socialists would be forced to play dirty have in mind? There isn't one area of our national life with which they haven't "played dirty".

Anonymous said...

They don't like it up em do they?

I suspect that Brown will be coming in for rather a lot of personal abuse and ridicule over the next couple of years & not only from the Tories.

I note that the Blairite knives appear to be being sharpened up in recent days and there will doubtless be some opportunistic sharks in the cabinet who've smelled Brown blood in the water and are rather wondering about their own career prospects, not to mention Labour backbenchers in marginals who would rather like to keep their seats on the gravy train.

Mr Broon needs to grow a thicker skin PDQ methinks.

AD627 said...

It’s a perfectly good post on a Conservative blog, because it reminds Conservatives of the benefits of attacking Gordon Brown. Not only is it fundamentally right that he suffers the painful consequences of his own ineptitude, but these attacks will reap even greater benefits because Brown is so thin-skinned that he can’t help responding to them in a completely inappropriate fashion (as we have seen recently as he desperately flails around in a bid to rediscover his honeymoon popularity).

Better than that though, is the pain these attacks cause New Labour mongs. They have to face the fact that they are coming to agree that Gordon Brown is a failure as Prime Minister and – worse – are reminded that they allowed this man – known by his closest colleagues to be deeply psychologically flawed – to assume the premiership without even a leadership contest, let alone a general election.

Anonymous said...

Bet old Gordie hates those shots on Youtube of him picking his snozzle and tucking in to a quick PMQ snack.

Kris said...

we see labour's true colours now. They're not all huggy and concerned for the people, they're ruthless power grabbers that get a kick out of taxing us to the hilt and telling us pezzies what's best.

Iain, their threats are indicative that they're on the ropes.

Instead of labour briefing against those across the aisle, perhaps they could turn their attentions to cleaning up the hospitals - and the rest.

Anonymous said...

Andrew Rawnsley, in Servants of the People, explains how difficult Gordon was to deal with, as Chancellor. He would never discuss pending decisions outside his own intimate circle and certainly not in cabinet. Decisions would simply be handed down, ex cathedra. And once handed down, there was no room, in his mind, for any further discussion.

He is going to find - has already found - that the job of PM is very, very different.

Rich Tee said...

I'm actually quite looking forward to it. I expect politicians to have a bit of passion. A nation brought up on EastEnders and Big Brother might start taking an interest in politics if there's a fight in it.

My only worry is that Brown's mental instability might lead to some bad decisions. Like attacking Iran.

Anonymous said...

I remmber Frank Field ( I think on a Peter Oborne Dispatches?) recalling once that after politely arguing a point of policy with Gordon (Child Benefit related I think) the then chancellor had lost the plot and after the meeting buttonholed Field in a blind rage "I thought you were my friend" Brown had howled at him.

As Frank Field said it's hard to convince peole who haven't had first hand experience of Brown's fundamental instability of the truth.

Aftee last Weds' catastrophic PMQ's I doubt that, in future, anyone will require much persuading.

Anonymous said...

PM Brown has been thin skinned prompt local people here to hold a meeting to try to organise


by ignoring the majority of us who demand a referendum on the EU Treaty.

Brown's also seems to be ignoring the report of the parliamentary EU Scrutiny Committee - a majority of whom are Labour MPs - which states that that Brown's RED LINES, or opt outs, do not mean that the Treaty is substantially different from the Constitution booted out by the French and the Dutch.

The committee has said that the Treaty is substantially equivalent to the Constitution - a document which would change our way of life and damage our democracy for ever.

Any local people who would like to attend our meeting in Harlow can do so at:

The Woman's Institute Hall
Garden Terrace
Old Harlow (near the doctors surgery)

at 6.30 PM


Anonymous said...

What the hell is this Iain's Mailing List ad on the left? What email addresses and why would we want to receive them?

Iain just sneaked this onto his site without a murmur of what it is all about. He is not normally so reticent. We even know that he just bought a new bed, for heaven's sake, and that he didn't get up until noon yesterday.

Why so quiet about this ad?

Anonymous said...

The big tell on the truth of Ian's comments was how Brown responded to Cameron's onslaught at PMQ.
There was the obvious signing of distress - he just couldn't wait to respond and blabbed incoherently while Cameron spoke.
But did you notice his body language display tell the viewer that he was experiencing an overload of emotional spasm. Brown was in real pain at one stage.
For someone who has spent more than 20 years in politics it is also clear that he is unable to think in these situations.
There was the Monday press conference where he took refuge in the vision word. On the Wednesday, he even forget the standard govermnent rebuttal to opposition attack which is to recite its achievements and the other party's failings.
Only now is it possible to comprehend what Cherie Blair said about Brown at the last Labour Party conference.

Anonymous said...

gordon's terminal week said...

"....fundamental instability......After last Weds' catastrophic PMQ's I doubt that, in future, anyone will require much persuading.

October 14, 2007 2:43 PM"

Probably not, but I for one am looking forward to weeks of pleasure watching PMQs etc! After 15 years of being lectured by these people who wouldn't be.

Though some here may not agree entirely, I'm also enjoying seeing the boot put in, forcefully and accurately, by people that, it has been suggested, didn't have the sense or the personality to do so.

strapworld said...

Iain, This sounds very much like the politics of the schoolyard!

Tell him to shut up or we will throw dirt. I ask you and this is supposed to be a parliamentary democracy!

I worry greatly about Brown. You will have noted that well before the Conferences I said that Brown would not call an election. I am convinced that we have a moral and physical coward at the helm and what Alistair Campbell said is asbsolutely spot on.

Dave and Boy George should carry on and on and on. I think the best result will be, like Eden, an early departure due to ill health...otherwise I fear he will do great damage to our country.

In another Kenny Rogers hit BROWN is THE coward of the count(r)y.

Anonymous said...

It baffles me that Brown's mental instability apparently comes as a surprise to so many. It is glaringly obvious and always has been.

If he worked in an office with you, you would constantly be catching a colleague's eye, raising an eyebrow and giving them an old-fashioned look. The man's a nut job.

Anonymous said...

The LibDems are often accused of being the dirtiest fighters. I think that's untrue (although I am a LibDem myself). Labour are the most openly nasty. And I am so sick & tired of their brainless made-up election-time accusations that the Tories will cut [make up a number] billion pounds from the NHS. In London they now accuse both the LibDems and the Tories of wanting to take the Freedom Pass away from old people. A total lie. They make me sick. As Blair once said of Major: enough is enough, be done, be gone.

hatfield girl said...

'Blood everywhere, before he goes.'

Yes, Prodicus, and goading Brown and his regime will make them more determined to close down any route to their removal by peaceable means. For they are Good people and we should be grateful they trouble themselves to set our lives to rights and share our part fairly amongst us.

Still, goading them with Scotland's loss and the inappropriateness of their provenance and democratic support, their failure to consult on selling us out to the European Union Federated State, their mouthings on their Britain of the nations and the regions, their delivery of the wealth generated by the global capitalist economy in greater London to the indigence generated by the failure of the socialist planned heavy industry deserts of their heartlands, their denial of a decent education or skills training to most of the young, or retraining to the benefit dependent, etc.,

is worthwhile and causes them to writhe, lie, dissimulate, contort and lose their self importance and ill fitting socio- political dignity interestingly.

Praguetory said...

Iain, you toy with us? You know full well that Brown is thin-skinned. You don't need left-wing insiders to furnish you with this knowledge.

And may I commend Verity's reply which hits the bullseye.

Anonymous said...

The big test of whether Gordon Brown can admit that he was ever wrong will come on the 12th November when as Prime Minister he will be invited as premier guest to the annual Lord Mayor's Banquet at Guildhall.It is always a white tie dinner and all male Prime Ministers have respected this custom.Previously to make a statement that he was one of the people, he has turned up at Black Tie dinners at the Mansion House and CBI in a lounge suit. Perhaps that was excusable though incomprehensible as Chancellor but as Prime Minister he is there aa citizen number one, and surely courtesy will dictate white tie. Ghosh it will be like waiting to see how the bride is dressed at a wedding.
What a dilemma for him...would never have been necessary had like everyone else with manners, he would have worn black tie at a black tie dinner.

Reactionary Snob said...

I must say, I've long thought that Brown was the biggest coward in politics. Whenever a tought decision has had to be made, he has backed away - he wouldn't stand against Smith, wouldn't stand against Blair and then, when it came to the crunch, wouldn't go to the country with either the referendum he promised us OR the election he'd been planning for.


Jeremy Jacobs said...

"These are not good traits in a national leader".

Politicians = Leaders?

Show me a Bandwagon Iain and I'll show you a politician running after it.

JohnofScribbleSheet said...

Hmmm, there is always this impression that Brown cannot handle personal criticism. Is this true? Is there sufficient evidence? If it is true, I am worried. Even great PM's get attacked.

I hope he grows some skin.

Harriet Hamster said...

Jings Gordy and Help Ma Bob !

Poor old Granpa Broon,he's looking so full of gloom..
Now he developed one hell of a nervous tic
Must be "ower feert" of yon Michael Crick !!


Anonymous said...

Verity, you are spot on.

Did anyone really fall for the spin that an ego-obsessed lunatic like Brown was anything other than massively thin-skinned?

We have been seeing clear signs of his paranoia, self-obsession, control-freakery, hatred and fear of opponents, etc etc for years.

Did anyone think Charles Clarke, John Hutton, Frank Field, David Blunkett and others were making it up when they described Brown as an over-secretive, control freak who was practically impossible to work with?

What about Campbell's description of him as "psychologically flawed"?

It's all true of course and anyone who couldn't see it must have had their eyes shut and their hands firmly over their ears.

The tragic aspect of this for both the Labour Party and the country is that we allowed this monster to oust Tony Blair (who I admit was not without his faults) and to take control of the government.

However, I doubt he now has either the ability or inclination to last another 12 months particularly as the economy and the public finances deteriorate, much of which Brown will be rightly blamed for.

My predictin: Brown will not lead the Labour Party into the next election.

Savonarola said...

Brown made it his personal mission to 'destroy' Cameron whom he hates and now fears. In so planning he has played the man and not the ball with the attendant consequences. After hubris comes humiliation. He is the most odious politician of the last century. He shames his father.

Anonymous said...

Brown did seem angry at PMQs. As Proverbs warns :

22:24 Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go: Lest thou learn his ways, and get a snare to thy soul.

Anonymous said...

Gordon's volatile said... He's always reminded me of the line from Richard III :

Richard 111 eh! The Milliband twins had better watch out..where their sitting they could easily be smothered.

Anonymous said...

Verity Keep posting like that and I may have to marry you!

Anonymous said...

"An anoonymous Labour person in one of the papers" , Iain?
I don't believe you, but I've been enlightened, reading more bilious nonsense from the cronies on here.

I'f found recent posts about Brown'd disability thoroughly obnoxious, and retract an earlier remark I made about being a potential swinger. (I might be being a bit "thin-skinned there, as a close relatives of mine is similarly disabled)

I don't recognise the Britain you describe, Verity, but that's probably because I don't spend too much time under the hair-dryer.

Floating voters really ought to visit this site.

Iain, what was that blog about "tone" about? CAmeron doesn't have a chance controlling these extremists.

Anonymous said...

Brownbadger ... Cripes! I wasn't even thinking of the Milibands when I realised how much he reminded me of Richard III (the poisonous ,' bottled black spider ' etc) Now it all becomes clear! spooky stuff mate! Bet they're watching their backs these days!

Anonymous said...

As we seem to be quoting Shakespeare to-day

“Cowards die many times before their deaths; the valiant never taste death but once.”

Unknown said...

Do the following clinical symptoms remind you of anyone?

The DSM-IV Diagnostic Criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder are:

A. A pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, lack of empathy, as indicated by at least five of:

1. a grandiose sense of self-importance
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement, ie unreasonable expectations of especially favourable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
6. is interpersonally exploitative, ie takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7. lacks empathy and is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes

Any five are required for a diagnosis of NPD.

The nail-biting, the fury when criticized, the surrounding himself with a little gang of 'special friends' who hang on his every word and never challenge him, the inability to give credit to others, the bullying - it's all there. I have worked with a nut-job very similar to Gordo and in the end it takes its toll on everyone around them. Sit back and enjoy the fireworks!

Anonymous said...

Just watched Dawn Primarolo discussing the potential threat the country faces from obesity on the news, is this the same 'Red' Dawn Primarolo who was (as reported in Private Eyes) sponsored by Nestle to give a speech at the recent Labour Party conference? Surely not that would be yet another devasating example of New Labour shamelessness and hypocrisy, they wouldn't risk such a charge this week , surely?

Me vs Maradona vs Elvis said...

That comment by an anonymous clearly another member of the government short on courage)Labour MP shows that they're running scared and that the Tory jibes are working. Keep it up Dave!

Alex said...


That's sounds like 80% of all MPs. Did you have any particular one in mind?

Anonymous said...


I am afraid that every single one of those traits would apply most MPs!

Anonymous said...

How thin?

Thin enough to be peeled back!

hatfield girl said...

Philip, on checking the list it returned 4 ticks for me: (2,4,5,6, if anyone is interested). Phew, saved.

Wrinkled Weasel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Let's just summarise the prevailing political situation:

We have a party that has been in power for 10 years;
The leader of the party has just taken over after a 13 year wait;
No-one challenged him for that position;
The party membership has been dropping since 1997;
The party has been elected on a decreasing vote for 3 elections;
The party promised so much yet has still so much work to do (NHS, education, etc.);
We are on the brink of a potential financial crisis, and although the economy has been strong, the government is borrowing almost record amounts, and the tax burden is the highest ever. What's the get-out-of-jail card? More tax and borrowing? Or severe cutbacks?

Frankly, it doesn't matter whether Brown is thin-skinned or not. Once the mask slips, it is difficult to recover. The future of our country is at stake. The New Labour Project is moribund, that's clear, but Messrs. Cameron and Osborne have a lot of work to do to finally turn the tide. Oh, and please put the boot in with an air of justice and righteousness - that's the way to do it!

Anonymous said...

The Labour line at the moment is:
Brown is a serious, decent man.
Cameron is a public school bully.
(Mum, this posh kid is picking on me!)
Useful idiots Amanda Platell and Peter Oborne took this line in the Mail on Saturday.
Instructions from Paul Dacre, or directly from Brown?

Anonymous said...

John T said...
"..........I've been enlightened, reading more bilious nonsense from the cronies on here......"
October 14, 2007 5:01 PM

Blair, Brown and their highly efficient spin masters came to power by ruthless attacks on Tories and Toryism. Some of their criticism certainly was well founded, some was not. For ten years they have exercised power in ways which are coming to be seen as less than admirable by many people who aren't die-hard Tories. Live by it, die by it I'm afraid.

Anonymous said...

Sadly, this blog passes every one of the tests for Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

And as we are quoting Shakespeare: are you lot mad, or just pretending to be?

Anonymous said...

sorry, let me see if i understood, cameron can play dirty, but brown can't?

Anonymous said...

"He is known to loathe George Osborne with a passion that almost manifests itself physically"

He does have some good points then.

Anonymous said...

Can anyone explain what Cameron means by "in this new world of freedom"?

Anonymous said...

Brown is an oddball - everything which you and others remark upon ponts to him as having a variety of Aspergers syndrome .

They are often touchy oddballs .

Anonymous said...

No Name...

Cameron can play dirty but Brown can't?

Which planet are you on?

Cameron's job is to highlight Brown's failings. In case you haven't noticed, he's leader of THE OPPOSITION.

I don't he he's played dirty; he played a bad hand very well at the party conference, and has pressed home his advanatge at PMQ's.

Are you saying that Brown wouldn't have done the same in his position?

Get real.

Anonymous said...

Henry Rogers
I agree entirely, and your well-made point just about keeps me on board. Please keep posting, we may not agree (yet), but I'm here for sensible (even witty sometimes) exchanges, not irretrievable pre-Magna Carta rot.
I salute you.

John Trenchard said...

"play dirty"?

i do hope some Conservative has that rocking horse photo tucked away.

John Trenchard said...

oh - and by the way Iain, Cameron just lost my vote because of this nonsense...

We're Living in a new world of Freedom

Really David? Ignoring the CCTV society? The 3,000 new crimes that Labour have introduced? The ever growing power of unelected Brussels Eurocrats? The banning of handguns and thus the removal of my right to defend MY property with arms? The influx of millions of immigrants resulting in higher crime levels and thus less freedom for us law abiding folks?

You really are living in other world Mr Cameron. We have LESS freedom than what our forefathers had Mr Cameron - and so, the question is - what are you going to do about it?

Anonymous said...

Interesting piece about Obesity Czarina 'Red' Dawn Primarolo on this blog:

'Bristol South’s Labour MP Dawn Primarolo, now a government health minister, was at last week’s Labour Party Conference in Bournemouth again showing off the impeccable left wing principles that got her selected to the post in the first place.

During a very busy schedule Dawn, in her new health role, found time to discuss the growing problem of obesity at an event sponsored by none other than, er . . . Nestlé! The company that manufacture such obesity beating products as Kit Kat, Smarties, Aero and Milky Bar.

The company is also at the forefront of efforts to derail the “traffic light” food labeling system promoted by the FSA and has opposed efforts to limit junk food advertising aimed at kids.'

Anonymous said...

Quick question; Who is now in charge of deciding whether we should adopt the Euro - Gord or Darling?

Anonymous said...

"He is known to loathe George Osborne with a passion that almost manifests itself physically"

Love/hate: merely two sides of the same coin.

I always thought there was a strong undercurent of homo-eroticism in Brown's, clearly intense, feelings towards George Osborne.

Anonymous said...

This line that Cameron was a public school bully was pedalled on Question Time by Chuka Umanna of the Brownite Compass Group. He also said he was all in favour of Inheritance Tax as it encouraged meritocracy.
However, on his legal website Umanna boasts of his legal heritage with his mother a solicitor, his uncle a barrister and his grand-father a High Court Judge.

Anonymous said...

anonymous of 9.33
Quick answer - the electorate, through a referendum.

SLow answer, see what G.B. achieves in the official talks this week, and then decide if you really want a referendum on a treaty whose main terms we aren't party to. He'll veto it if it's not what he told Blair to get, and agree to it if it's harmless, subject to months of debate and a vote in The Commons. Don't listen to the sheep, listen to the debate.

Anonymous said...

Gordon Brown’s vision is a canard, and now he’s ducked calling an election he’s proved himself a chicken who can only grouse about needing a chance to show us what he can do. His poultry whinging no longer has a feather to fly with. He just looks like a great tit and Nu Labour is clearly a turkey of a party which is having trouble hawking what few policies they’ve got. All they can do is parrot other people’s ideas and end up with egg on their faces. Unlike Blair, Brown can’t wing it at PMQs and he’s not even game for a laugh, in fact his good humour is as rare as hen’s teeth. He’s been increasing the tax birden and robin us blind for years and now the polls are showing that the public have finally bittern the hand that wasn’t feeding them. He can’t crow about things now, in fact he’s more like raven mad. I wonder if he feels any regret about becoming leader? Maybe we’ll soon be hearing his swan song.

(Could probably have continued but I got bored.)

Anonymous said...

John Trenchard:

I think you misunderstood the context of his speech. He wasn't talking about freedom in the civil sense (for which I think many, including me, share your concerns) but about freedom in the consumer sense and that the internet etc is enabling
all sorts of goods and services to be supplied in innovative ways that gives the consumer far greater freedom of choice than previously available. I think he was making the case that dealing with government and public services lags way behind in this sense.

Anonymous said...

john t - are you old enough to remember the vicious personal attacks on Thatcher by Labour personnel during the 80's? Or what is still posted about her on various blogs?

Or the disgusting 'jokes' made about her demise made recently by Jeremy Hardy and Sandy Toksvig on Radio 4? My, how everyone laughed.

Do you recall comments from this year's Labour conference about wanting to 'kill' the Tories?

So could you ease up on comments about how 'rabid' and 'nasty' we are here about the PM, please? I don't agree with comments about his physical disability, I do think it is legitimate to question aspects of his personality.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for agreeing with me.

I never tolerated personal attacks on Lady T. either (though to me "per sona = through sound, so there is a legitimate line of attack down the voice training route). And Blair had voice training too, though it was more to do with phrasing than placing.

I'm against bigotry wherever it appears - it robs a decent argument of decency, and I'd prefer analysis of ideas to analysis of "personal" traits.

I would never accuse anyone her of being "rabid", so I apologise if you inferred it; my main objection is to lack of wit and proper engagement, so thanks for displaying both, anyway!

Anonymous said...

I'd like to point out that I'm not "john trenchard" and that I believe the influx of immigrants has caused more damage to their own countries' economies than ours (which has benefitted), that most crime is committed by indigent Brits and that I detest almost every phrase uttered by Sandy Toksvig and Jeremy Hardy.

Anonymous said...

john t, 10.54pm: No, not Europe. The Euro. Gord had five (or was it six?) secret tests for seeing if our economy was converging with the Eurozone.(I admit this is a trifling aside compared to the treaty.)

Does anyone know if the responsibility has been passed to Chancellor Darling or is it still Gordon's?

Newmania said...

Verity back to her brilliant best~!

The subject of Brown’s personality is entirely valid as this is the only thing that has changed from the hugely unpopular Blair regime. He has made it the issue . As he is a weird obsessive who eats Lizards and digests them in a pouch down the left hand side of his face , it was unwise of him.

Gordon`s volatile - I have also noticed the similarity between the Shakespearian Richard the Third and Brown.


( He’s more like Nixon though…)

Newmania said...

Judith , that sort of crapola is still the currency of BBC so called comedy. It has been unceasing and in the 90s formed a significant part of the campaign to "Contaminate" the Conservative brand , in the first place.

Lessons in politesse we do not need from the disgusting low minded lefty bile spewers .

In fact, well said Judith , you can stir my horlicks anytime...

Anonymous said...

Speaking of dirt, how will Brown cope with questions about the C. Difficule outbreak in Maidstone? He deserves to be savaged for this.

Anonymous said...

"the most odious politician of the last century."

I am no fan of Gordon Brown but as left-wing politicians go he hardly registers on the malignant narcissism scale.

He does not for example, believe that his political opponents ought to be murdered. He simply dreams about being the leader of a one party State.

Anonymous said...

@ John T

In 1997 there was nothing significantly wrong with the country. Liebour knew this, and had no idea what to do next. Having failed to convince the electorate of the merits of socialism, the party stopped talking about it and hit on the idea of a vicious ad hominem attack against everyone who voted Conservative. Remember the maturity and insight of Campbell's critique of Major? "He tucks his shirt into his underpants", wasn't it? And to this day you will find bloggers and Wikipedia editors who think "I hate you" is a legitimate critique of Thatcher.

And of course all these sneers about so-called Tory "sleaze" were going on while Mandelson was lying on his mortgage application form, while the Liebour Party was taking fat bungs from Bernie Ecclestone, etc, etc....

So now they should reap what they sowed. Too bad if they don't like it. Let's hear more about Broon's anti-psychotic medication. Let's hear more about his being gay and lying about it for years. Let's hear more about his being a little yellow-bellied Scotch maggot. Let's hear more about his and Darling's little tax fiddles. That's how they got in, and it will get them out.

There is a important distinction between Labour voters and Labour politicians. The former naively voted for the latter thinking they intended to do something about poverty and public services. That soemthing has consisted of deliberately making them worse for party political advantage. For doing that the Labour Party deserve to be publicly vilified as lying tapeworm.

Anonymous said...

Read this - Monday's leader from the Daily Brown on orders from an ailing Dacre.

'It is a rudimentary political maxim that when a man is down, the jackals gather.

So it is no surprise that Gordon Brown has found himself under attack after his disastrous week.

Nor that those reportedly most keen to undermine him are members of his own party with whom he once sat around the Cabinet table.

Stephen Byers and Alan Milburn have long harboured grudges against Mr Brown, whose success was in sharp contrast to their own abysmal failures.

Mr Byers was forced to quit as Transport Secretary after being caught out in a series of lies. Mr Milburn resigned as Health Secretary 'to spend more time with his family' but was brought back by Tony Blair to run an election campaign. He was so incompetent, however, that he had to be replaced by Mr Brown.

Both are malcontents who, had they had the courage, might have run against Mr Brown for the Labour leadership but bottled it.

They have been joined by Lord Falconer, the original Tony crony, who was not kept on as Lord Chancellor and now is furious that Mr Brown wants to prevent him receiving his full, excessive pension.

It ill behoves these political pygmies, with their pathetic records, to attack Mr Brown who, despite his current (largely self-inflicted) position, delivered through his stewardship of the economy the one resounding success of the Blair decade.

At a time when the perenially divided Tories are displaying uncharacteristic unity, it is ironic that leading figures in New Labour, for many years a byword for ruthless party discipline, are turning on their leader.

Either they have learned nothing from history or they are too bitter and selfindulgent to care.'

Delivered the economy? Erm, what the OECD just say about the UK economy.....?

Anonymous said...

Said Newmania - "Judith , that sort of crapola is still the currency of BBC so called comedy."

I didn't know the BBC did comedy.

Supporting Newmania, would that include that paedophile comedy star who downloaded inhuman child abuse files on his computer and claimed he was doing it for "research" of a new show - a laugh a minute - he was writing about paedophilia? The catch-line of which was to be "I'm just a minor offender"?

I daresay the other prisoners in the lock-up have been explaining some facts to this "researcher".

Dr Spyn - I think the Tories are still frit. They should come in with cold fury.

Will they?

We'll see. Gnawing Patricia Hewitt apart with their bare teeth would be an example of behaviour about which I could feel relaxed.

Anonymous said...

Verity is not brilliant, she's just an old MacArthyiste whose time has gone.

Insidious remarks like:

"If he worked in an office with you, you would constantly be catching a colleague's eye, raising an eyebrow and giving them an old-fashioned look"

show her in her true colours.

I detect a certain discomfort in some of the Tories at the vile mockery of a disability, but if it isn't there, I stand corrected.

Anonymous said...

Gareth, I thought it was Labour to hold a referendum prior to joining the Euro, but if it isn't then again, I stand corrected.

The Euro is for now a non-issue, though technically it would be The C of the Ex.'s decision to (re)set the perameters

Anonymous said...

It's because Brown is unbalanced and weak. Go for his juggular! Being threatened by New Labour is like being threatend by the most bitchy girlyman in history. They'd better win at least one of the wars they've started before they start threatening anyone.

Vienna Woods said...

JohnT wrote
...... that I believe the influx of immigrants has caused more damage to their own countries' economies than ours (which has benefitted)….
I entirely agree with you. I see from a DT article published today that all of the former East European countries (and of course, ahem, Austria & Switzerland) are far less tolerant of immigrants than the Brits, which begs the question, why the hell are they here?
The scenario of the huge immigrant invasion from East Europe has been well covered in Ian’s blog and we all know that the “Visionless” EU and NuLab should be carrying the can for that one. However, I get distinctly fed up of hearing that immigration has benefitted the economy. Has it really? How so? Has anyone really researched the true costs to the UK of immigration instead of looking at the questionable benefit? What about the infrastructure? Where the hell did all the housing come from to absorb 620,000 Poles during the last couple of years? Who is paying for the social health costs and pension entitlements and schooling for the families? What proportions of immigrants really pay taxes, as from what I understand, many are on the minimum wage level? What is with those that are self employed, as in my experience, they are extremely inventive with accounting which is an inheritance from the old communist philosophy of “Socialist Acquisition”. What proportion of the indigenous population has been displaced by immigrants? We know also that the Police have their work cut out with the surge in criminality and the costs of that have already been published widely. The idea that East Europeans are less workshy will soon fade as most are initially gobsmacked by the level of earnings in the UK and are enthused to try harder. However, with an economic recession and mass unemployment in the service sector likely to hit any time soon, the other popular adage from East Europe will kick in – “We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us”.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 1.36pm
Labour got in in 1997 because they weren't the Conservative Party, and it's as simple as that. i could point to Tory MP criminals and councillors like Falkender, and you can point to similar Labour ones and Derek Hatton.

I've often said that the Conservatives' return will come - the longer Labour stay in, the sooner the Conservatives will return.

When that happens (and it won't affect my life badly when it does), much of the nastiness and unnecessary bigotry will have disappeared from their politics, I hope, because the New Conservatives will have taken over from the old, unpleasant, irrelevant ones.

If that makes me a "leftist commie", then it makes one of David Cameron too.

Anonymous said...

Vienna Woods
An interesting piece, as usual.
When both parties say the same thing regarding the "benefits of immigration" I trust that it is true, and don't have time to research anything to form my own opinion. That's an argument for more real research to be made available to us, not a stick for some-one to beat me with.

I like the presence of more people from different countries over here,
it is in itself a good thing and nothing to be afraid of, as long as there are enforceable limits, and as long as we don't end up denuding emerging ecopnomies of their life-blood. Two big conditions - I just hope the Tories are ready for a debate that isn't coloured by, well, Colour, and xenophobia (I mean that in its literal sense, not knee-jerk pejorative)

Apparently Poland's economy is experiencing wage inflation because of a squeeze on labour markets.

The very few Poles I know send money back to Poland, and in the medium term are likely to return there to enjoy its growth. Again, those who stay should be made welcome, as long as they speak English and contribute to our society.

Newmania said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Newmania said...

Spewmania Jon.... tsk tsk ?
"I like the presence of more people from different countries over here,"

Really? Where do you live and where do your children go to school then? Prove it ! Answer or I shall assume your are a hypocrite like the rest

Migration Watch accept that the economy benefits at about a Mars bar a month per immigrant. This , of course , leaves out the intangible " Social capital that people are so keen on when it comes to their own lives . Over all the cost has been huge and largely avoided by those who sing the praises of multiculturalism"

Its a question of the rate . At the current rate the white English as an ethnicity will be in a minority in their own country in 20 years .This is largely due to asymmetrical family size. the whites are replacing themselves 1.3 appx. ie imploding .

Such an implosion would have quickly solved the housing crisis and righted itself .It cannot as we will in fact have 20,000,000 more in fifty years.

Anonymous said...

Newmania - is there such a thing as a Freudian typo? No offence meant.

London. Lots of different nationalities, getting on together.

I know you're not rascist, but your reliance on will comfort those who are.

I am against "multiculturism" - it is as stupid and dangerous a piece of social experimentation as the loonies could think of. We should all speak English, and be brave enough to learn other languages for when we travel.

I am for Mono-culturalism and assimilation. My local vicar agrees, and I suspect Cameron does too.

Anonymous said...

Can we have an orderly queue please - before any election there must be a referendum on the EU Constitution and before that there needs to be a referendum on the Euro.

And please would Gordon Brown stop promising referendums he has absolutely no intention of allowing just to get him out of a short term hole.

Anonymous said...

I have a request of someone who is favour of multiculturalism and mass immigration.

Could you please quantify how Japan has lost out from rejecting both?

Or would Japan be the biggest economy in the world instead of only the second-biggest, and completely crime-free instead of merely almost completely crime-free?

I don't recommend any answer along the lines of "multiculturalism doesn't work for all cultures" unless you want to be laughed at as a stupid racist.

Anonymous said...

Get them to read this blog and hope they see sense.

Newmania said...

London. Lots of different nationalities, getting on together.

Ha ha ha .... Have you any idea of the rate of so called "white flight" from London ?I take it you will not be sending your children to a school collapsing under the pressurre of incoherent cultures and languages. I am joining the white flight ( slightly ironically in my case).

I do not rergard the accusation of racism as one to trump all others and if you want someone to blame try looking at the way the ethnic minorities feel about eachother.

I approve of your mono cultural views however and at heart all I say is this . Immigration is at four times 90s levels. Sheer common sense and caution would strongly recommmend the brakes are put on . Its just obvious ...

Control immigration within sensible rates
Support the dominant culture against ghettos and seperation

With these two moderate policies in place we can continue to be tolerant country. The astonishing thing is how difficult it is to get the bleeding obvious accepted .

( I expect your Vicar is looking forward the King Charles being only the "Defender of Faith")ie any faith)

Elby the Beserk said...

Newmania - Multi-culturalism; difficult term as it can be used in many ways. I lived from 1986 to 2005 in Eastin, inner city Bristol. An old working class community (mining) which in the past 30 years has seen many Indians & Pakistanis settle there. This influx has been the bedrock of the economic revival of the area, and more importantly, the social revival of the area. Wee example - our Muslim neighbours would always say "Happy Christmas" to us on Xmas Day, and the Sikhs who love a party, told me how much they enjoy "our pagan festivals" :-). We all fell about laughing.

So it can work. It can't be imposed. I salute especially the Muslim community in Easton which is actively involved in local politics to the benefit of ALL. Indeed, I am hoping that the local councillor, who used to play football in the streets with my boys, will be the first Asian Mayor of Bristol.

Anonymous said...

"When both parties say the same thing regarding the "benefits of immigration" I trust that it is true"

I think you might be a bit too trusting.

"I like the presence of more people from different countries over here,
it is in itself a good thing and nothing to be afraid of, as long as there are enforceable limits, and as long as we don't end up denuding emerging ecopnomies of their life-blood."

There aren't and we will.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, that's your opinion,mine is closer to Newmania's than that, without joining him in a "white-flight".

I made it quite clear I wan't giving anyone a stick to beat me with, but you've managed to do so anyway. I was calling for more facts, NOT simply saying that I trusted anything the two parties agree on.

Anonymous said...

Not the place, Newmania, maybe, but kind of related...
Any thoughts on Brown's ambition to make London the Islamic Banking capital of the world?

I think it's either a cynical profiteering wheeze, or part of a bigger plan to draw the tolerable bits of Sharia Investment rules into the mainstream, and cool the temperature between Islam and the West.

Oscar Miller said...

Useful idiots Amanda Platell and Peter Oborne took this line in the Mail on Saturday.
Instructions from Paul Dacre, or directly from Brown?

October 14, 2007 6:18 PM

Same line taken in today's Metro which published two letters attacking 'nasty' Dave and return to 'Punch and Judy' under he headline - 'Who's the real man of straw?' This must be straight from Brown central. So - every time Brown is crap at PMQs it looks like the Conservatives are going to be blamed for it. (how could they be so horrid to our sensitive leader?)

Anonymous said...

John T,

Thanks for the kind remark a while back. Your latest: -

"...I detect a certain discomfort in some of the Tories at the vile mockery of a disability, but if it isn't there, I stand corrected.

October 15, 2007 8:28 AM........"

Count me in as one of the discomforted. I'm all for kicking the arguments of people I consider to be misguided with a fair amount of ferocity. I'm all for attacking the things that people do for the same reason. But, speaking personally, I find it quite hard to hate the person behind such deeds and policies. Perhaps I'm a bit too soft, as someone said when I defended Cameron for elementary good manners when Blair left the House of Commons for the last time. Attacking people for their physical or mental disabilities should be beneath us here, but I see no harm in criticising supposedly well brought up adults for picking their noses in public and ferociously attacking them at PMQ for their conduct in office.

Glad you're staying here!

Anonymous said...

On reflection I agree with criticising people's bad personal habits, and I hope his family have taken him to task over it.

Active hatred of anyone is soul-destroying and a waste of effort, which is why I appreciate people who display a modicum of wit when getting things off their chest.

There are more good people here than not so good, in that respect, including you...

Anonymous said...

"Active hatred of anyone is soul-destroying and a waste of effort"

No!!! Use your hate it makesssss you STRONG!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Au contraire

'This Government is bereft of measures to criticise. Its centre is hollow. New Labour is not and never was “measures”: it is a marketing exercise; it is men or it is nothing. So go for the men, I say. Kick the living daylights out of them. Humiliate them. Knock them all over the shop. Puncture their fragile confidence.

Bring them down.'

lilith said...

I think it is legitimate to posit that our Prime Minister has an untreatable Personality Disorder. Just because so many MPs have a similar condition does not mean we should not be concerned. "Service" is only something that can be faked by someone with NPD, not undertaken or comprehended.

Anonymous said...

The only immigrants I approve of and would like to see more of are Indians. A) They're better looking than other immigrants; and B)Wherever they go, they create wealth. In this, they are unique.

We need a referendum on whether our tiny country wants more "immigrants" and whether we want to give them free housing and free money and free medical treatment. I think we know what the result would be. So the undemocratic, tyrannical socialists are acting against the will of the taxpayers. This should be illegal.

We also need to start discussing reverse immigration and repatriation. France already slips repatriating immigrants a small bung to get started in their ancestral country - or wherever, actually, just as long as it's not France.

These are issues Cameron is going to have to address head on. If he makes himself into a carbon copy of the controlling, undemocratic One Worlder Gordon Brown, there will be no point in voting for him. One Worlderism is not the default position of mankind. Conservatism - self-interest and a desire to better one's circumstances and leave a legacy to one's offspring - is the default position of mankind and the Tories should stop being too frightened to say so.

Anonymous said...

Elby the Berserk -
Being of Indian descent (great-great grandmother), I can attest to the decency of most of them. The point is, they've been here long enough to assimilate - not that it takes too long, I know Kenyan Asians who've been here 25 yearts and are already firmly established.

It really is one world (that's a Christian view as well as most other religions), and so long as we ignore , admonish or laugh at the ignorant, it's likely that newcomers to this country will similarly contribute. Especially if Cameron (or Brown for that matter) isists on English language training being a pre-requisite of staying here.

Vienna Woods said...

John T, I’ve long been of the opinion that the „Buzzword Blues“ created by our US cousins, as something that sounds very “with-it”, - to them at least, is the scourge of not only our language, but our sanity as well.

Blair started this off in UK political speak and it seems to have caught on over the last decade or so until none of us can converse without inserting “cool” or some other nonsensical expression, or scream as a sign of appreciation, instead of clapping a good performance.

Politicians, on the other hand, find phrases like, “immigrants are a benefit to our economy” a very useful retort to forestall any possible accusation of racism, even though they have no idea whether it is true, or not. Indeed, it has been used recently by Chief Constables and several politicians. I suspect the expression began with some jumped-up economist employed by Blair & Brown to cover up a rather large pile of half truths. There are other overused expressions by many of us and, “multiculturalism” is another modernistic expression which is well past its sell-by date.

Anonymous said...

Agreed, Vienna Woods.

Immigrants were imported by the boatload (I refer to immigrants from Pakistan, primitive and adherents of a backward belief system) for one purpose - to dilute the British identity, give the government the rod of "racism" with which to beat the indigenes into submission and destabilise a formerly very stable country in the cause of the New World Order.

Socialism and communism proved massive failures in the last century, yet the One Worlders do not give up. "Man made global warming" is just another string to their bow of bullying techniques. Bullying through guilt: racism, global warming blah, blah, blah.

Iknow it's been commented on before, but have you ever noticed that most socialists are,in the main, awful looking people? The pretty people are all capitalists.

Anonymous said...

"Verity is...just an old MacArthyiste"

What a stupid comment.

Anonymous said...

Gordon's secret is that he has a memory that is decling rapidly.

Oh his other secret is a photo of a rocking chair (not a rocking horse) shot from behind in b/w in a dark room. .

Anonymous said...

As I said on another thread i'm off now.

The demeaning exhortation to give behind-the-back looks in the office is what drove me to the word MacArthyite, though I mis-spelt it.

There's no going back to an age whern this country had only one skin-colour, language, nationality within it, and that makes me happy.

Chris Goodman, i can't remember the rubbish you espoused on other threads, but like I've said to Verity, I'm off now. You aren't witty or clever, and I think Dave Cameron would find it a pity that so few people here stand up to the backward thinking of Verity and her ilk.

Vienna - 5-a-Side football last night at my local gym. 15 of us, of which 10 immigrants, 1st and second generation, different parts of the world. Lots of arguments and a good laugh in the pub afterwards. When I told them about this site, they advised me to stop polluting my mind and wasting my time.

With regret, I'm taking that advice.

The wizened appendage of the Conservative Party will eventually drop off, and then i may return to this soi-disan "centre-left" blog.

Anonymous said...

"...........The wizened appendage of the Conservative Party will eventually drop off, and then i may return to this soi-disan "centre-left" blog........."

John T,

I'm so sorry you are bailing out. Discussing things with sensible opponents surely has to be one of good things about political blogs.

Iain has posted often that he is a believer in free speech and he has even refrained from removing personal attacks on him. I think one or two people here let their keyboards run away with them in the near certainty that providing their post isn't actionable or obscene it will survive moderation.

I've crossed swords with Verity in the past and been accused of patronising her a couple of times and "screamed at" on another occasion. However on the whole I'm inclined to follow the traditional "Don't feed the trolls" advice. I only mention her by name since you referred to her in your post.

I think most of the Tories I know personally, and I suspect that most of those I meet on-line, find random vitriol from supposed Tory supporters downright embarrassing. It probably loses us a few votes too. Still, censorship would be worse.

Vienna Woods said...

Oh JohnT,
I thought you would be off soon. The tone of some your posts irks somewhat (whether it was intentional, or not, I have no idea). Several times you have commented that you have no time to research something or other, but you seemed to me, at least, to be looking for something, rather than taking part.

The first time I became aware of you was in a reply to a post of mine when you pointed out a spelling mistake. In subsequent posts you also made spelling errors, but nobody here mentioned the fact as it is usual that no one has the time or is so petty minded.

I see your were playing 5-a-Side football last night at your local gym. Good for you! All fifteen of you, including 10 immigrants of first and second generation from different parts of the world. Very nice indeed to enjoy lots of arguments and a good laugh in the pub afterwards. So, how about I tell you that our son is married to a very nice Indian girl. Our daughter’s three best friends are Pakistani, Vietnamese and Chinese and all three have accompanied us on holiday at one time or another. Our direct neighbours and good friends are Rumanian and I don’t give a toss who comes from where as long as they are decent. However, I do not believe that the EU is anything other than a retirement club for bent Politicians. I am totally against uncontrolled immigration from either outside or within the EU. I am also convinced that we do not “NEED”, and have never needed, immigration of the scale we have seen in Western Europe during the last five years. This has nothing to do with anything racial and has everything to do with allowing in your house only the people you invite.

Anonymous said...

Vienna - apologies for pettiness, you're right and I'm wrong.

Immigration - it's the "your house" bit that we disagree about. I think it's all "ours" to care for, and if you read me correctly, you'll know I'm for immigration controls, not because "we need them", but because our common purpose is to achieve things in harmony with others, not shut them out. I think my outlook tends more to the future, so does Cameron, but he and I are dismissed as ugly Communists along with anyone else who doesn't agree with HER.

You complain about the structural aspect of the EU (home for bent MPs) - it has faults in that, but it's kept peace among its members, and irrational though it may be (like the CAP prevents starvation(!)), it's the main reason why yours is such a minority view.

Balance of payments - If , say, a British manufacturer built a factory in China, empolyed 700 locals, and imported the goods to be assembled by his small team and machines in Dover, before exporting some to Europe and selling the rest here, would that count in the export or import figures?

Similarly, thje enormous wealth created by financial services in London makes any measurement less indicative of anything than they were when we had a bigger manufacturing sector. I think it's called globalisation.

I didn't research any of that, I just thought about what you said.

One of my first jobs was as a waiter / chef in a catering establishment. A large chain, but could just as easily have been state owned. We were a small team who had such regard for our manager that whenever nothing apparently needed doing, we'd clean everywhere. Every single nook and cranny. Not because it was a capitalist environment, but because we had a good manager, who incentivised us, and managed on our behalf the expectations of his bosses. That's informed my opinion on how public health and education should be run. Small teams, with excellent managers. That's IT. no ideology, no nastiness.

I don't mind vitriol, Henry (I'm an exponent myself!), but I do mind the thoughtlessness that accompanies a lot of it here. You all know what digusts me - the revelling in snide, cheap remarks, fingers in ears debate, swivel-headed unsupported tosh, mainly from people called "anonymous", and a failure to engage with others. Verity is somewhere on that list, but not the last one at least she responds with non-glib claptrap.

My problem with sticking around, Henry, is that I think too much about the things I read here, some from sensible debaters like you and Vienna Woods, and some whose outlook I so completely abhor, and I honestly don't have time. It's not water off a duck's back at all. (It's much gentler on UKPollingreport, which suits me better).

I cannot envisage ever reading poisonous "clever" remarks from anyone without wanting to stand up to them, for the simple reason that not to speak out perpetuates and spreads their poison. I'm not referring to Verity so much as some of the others, but I can't stand to let it pass.

That's why I'm off. Not because I disagree with many of the views made (I'm not TOO far off yours, Vienna, and might even vote your way again one day), but becasue it's a waste. Such a waste.

i can't stay anyway, because Iain has confirmed to me that it's impossible to prevent people from identifying themselves as me without "joining" google. I won't do that, and i can't be doing with proving I'm not who the obscene idiots say i am (you missed the most brutalising wxchange, which disappeared 5 minutes after it appeared).

Are you asked to fill in a word verification box every time? I'm sure this one translates as "coward" from some European language! That's me for now!

Yours in peace.

ps Of course I'll come back until this thread goes cold, out of respect to anyone who weants to respond.

Anonymous said...

One last thin, Vienna Woods, my comment about the gym was made after considering "Nemania's" comment about "white flight" from London. I may well have conflated your comment with his, and been wound up by Verity's rather unpleasant endorsement of your (more)respectable position.

As I said earlier, I suspect Cameron wishes people like you would criticise views like hers a little more.

Sorry for irking.

Anonymous said...

John T,

Why this constant need to dramatise yourself? So you have decided not to post here anymore. So what!

Verity, who by the way is not a member of the Conservative Party (she does not even live in the country) can be ignorant and unpleasant sometimes (ok a lot) but she is a punchy writer who provokes debate.

You on the other hand give the impression of being a sanctimonious twit.

You seem to be a decent enough fellow, but for me politics is pretty much the business of trying to minimise the impact which people like you have on my life. The fact that you find yourself typing “MacArthyite” merely because (let us be frank) you do not agree with what Verity has to say, speaks volumes.

Whether or not you want to contribute to this forum is up to you; it is not a matter of any great import to anybody except yourself.

Anonymous said...

Vienna Woods - As always, when called on one of his untenable, silly, long-winded position statements, John T retreats with pretended good humour and "concedes" points with pretended courtesy.

He's a lefty masquerading as a human, but he always gets everything slightly wrong. All his pretended apologies ring false because he cannot resist inserting his real point of view, under the "good natured" guise of explaining the position he claims was in error.

His long, drivelling, self-justifying, overly personal posts remind me of those of Tory Boys Never Grow Up ... hmmmm ...

By the way, Vienna, you have absolutely no reason to justify yourself to this "John T" by recounting your own multi-culti credentials. Who you and your family associate with is none of this individual's business. He's a silly little pretentious bully, whatever his nomme de guerre du mois.

Anonymous said...

Chris Goodman

My wife agrees about the sanctimonious bit, but your dismissal of "MacArthyite" reveals you as a twit.

Remember him? Saw communits everywhere and encouraged people to behave in inhuman ways?

Same goes fro me about you, only you're the one with your face in the mirror and the spolight on.

If Verity lives in another country, then that's excellent news, i just hope she isn't entitled to vote here.

Provokes debate? What sort - your dinner parties must be gruesome, mate, if you think of that as debate.

Anonymous said...

Nasty, dismissive lies again. Has the peroxide osmoted so far that you're driven to utter this bilge?

Whatever time it is in your part of the world, love, go to bed and leave life for those living.

Enjoy the online Sanatogen parties with Chris "Good"man, bye.

Anonymous said...

The logorheaic John T, masquerading as jrbrynlh, aka Tory Boys Never Grow Up quotes his wife, as always, under the impression this gives him credibility.

He then, blinded by emotion and lack of education, moves on to his own words despite being unable to spell anything over one syllable. What is a "communit", by the way? Self-descriptive?

Then segues on to insults. You're going to have to watch your language, John T Etc, because if you keep making personal remarks, I will complain about you.

You know nothing about me except that I am a committed individual of the right, that I'm smarter than you and that I live in another country, so flinging your poo out of your cage is a foolish waste of energy.

Yes, I am registered to vote in Britain. I'll be voting against the communists, aka "socialists", aka One Worlders, aka adherents of the New World Order aka megalomaniac power freaks.

Anonymous said...

I know you to be a bully the like of whom I have often met, and never failed to expose as a miserable fool.

I apologised for pettiness over spelling, and perceived "irksomeness" nothing else. Flunked "reading comprehension" as well as cat-care did you?

I now know you are less of a threat to us than you might be if you lived among us and had physical access to our young. (I had thought you had been given ainternet access to stop you from harrassing the other inmates, thoug h that could be true of wherever you are.)

I will seek and expose whenever opportunity arises unpleasntness like yours expose it for for the under-educated non-sequitous self-demeaning MacArthyite pompous dribble that it is. I just hope my fellow voters come across your "writings" when they are deeciding our future.

If you are educated, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Chris G - "So what"??? "Who cares" ???I was addressing myself to Henry.

Anonymous said...

John T,

If you hang on that final curtain any longer you risk wearing it out.

By the way, I think you will find that as a result of the information that has come out about what the Soviet Union got up to in the USA in the post-war period, the more intelligent Leftists are more reticent about deploying the “McCarthyite” epithet these days – just a tip.

Anonymous said...

Chris G.

You made me smile. I was accused of "campiness" by someone on here last week, and my wife agreed with that too, the B***^! Not "lacking political acuity", though - she said "puh-lease" to that and fed me a line about gin-soaked invective.

Eliah Kazan received an Oscar on the night that Blair persuaded NATO to go into former Yugoslavia in 1999, there to bomb the hell out of the "deepening authoritarianism" of the pro-Serbian pro-communism Yugoslav government, and its ethnic cleansing of 500k Kosovan Albanians. At the UN, Russia and China (communist states that Verity says I approve of!!!!!) condemned the NATO action , and the Independent the next day ran with "Gwynneth Paltow cries like a luvvie" headline just below its "newspaper of the Year" Masthead. That was the last time I ever bought the Independent

Eliah Khazan had been a prime McArthyite double-victim, forced to condemn his friends, and then shunned by Hollywood itself, because of his appalling, bullying questionning. That night, when NATO was freeing the oppressed from a catastrophe of potentially Holocaust proportions, Hollywood forgave Khazan and acknowledged that humanity survives by being decent, and not succumbing to the malice of cruelly-placed words.

That would never have happened in Russia, China former GDR, or any other authoritarian state that has no regard for its population.

This forum has a lot of ill-thought out "words", including some from me, and I'm allowed to retract some of them if I feel like it, just as you are.

Verity uses words in the full knowledge of how powerful they can be, but picked the wrong target when she picked on me.

I hope you understand what I'm saying. I want to copy Verity's outpourings and show them to my kids in 30 years time. When I ask them whether they remind them of anyone living then, I hope for all our sakes, that they say no.

Anonymous said...

I mean McArthy's appalling bullying questioning, not Khazan's.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for sharing.

Vienna Woods said...

Returning to the original topic (Just How Thin is George Brown's Skin?), I was completely stunned by the Home Office report into the value of immigration this morning.
I don't know who is pulling whose leg here, but David Davis's 'disingenuous' remark about this publication was spot-on, if not a little too mild.

In this report they're even trying to minimize the widely published immigration numbers and to infer that immigrants do not displace jobs within the indigenous population which is absolute poppycock. From Sainsbury's pro immigrant worker stance last week to Home Office spin this week, I think Brown is either stupid, or winding up his new spinning machine ready for take-off.

Anonymous said...

Vienna Woods

I though this had gone cold, but the report I read in The Times points of a financial "benefit" to this country of £6bn last year, and then makes many forceful and convincing arguments for proper controls, both on the borders and within the social sytstems (justice, health, education, etc.)

Nowhere did I see an analysis of the effects of migration on the "source" countries, and i think that's a pity.

I thought the whole thread was about "thin skin"!!

Mulstumesc Vienna Woods, and te ubesk (ask your neighbours.)

Any thoughts on the Islamic Banking ambitions of London?(sharia practices are already here, but Brown is hoping for an expansion)

i only come back to this thread, and will be gone permanently when it goes cold.

Anonymous said...

I'll have a look in the Telegraph later, i misght have missed it in the Times and I left it on the train.

Anonymous said...

Nothing in the Telegraph either.

It's a shame this debate is subject to the noise from "white-flight" final-solutionists.

Didn't the Veritas party implode because that's all they were, a loud noise?

I'd tell the 1m economically inactive under 25 year-olds to work a bit harder, realise the world doesn't owe them a living, and compare their prospects with the prospects of the millions of unqualified kids who left school in the seventies, eighties and nineties and went straight into dole queues. (Arguable whose fault, I stress).

It's a fact that language challenged kids stymie big progress in schools, among the controls I would initiate woould be separate language schooling for newcomers before they join our society.

The French police won't organise translation for British victims of crime there (in my experience - luck I speak French a bit). Why should they? And why should we?