After leaving it some time before posting on this thread again, I feel that our present pm has proved to be a complete disaster for this country and appears to not be serious about tackling some of the urgent issues that need resolving. I personally think he should go - the sooner the better - before he makes us into a laughing stock and destroys this country by not getting a grip on problems.
I also think his apparent lack of any character is not exactly endearing him to the leaders of other countries as well. Maybe that's not so important (as Maggie Thatcher wasn't exactly liked but at least was respected by foreign leaders) but he seems totally incapable of fighting for British interests. I feel that someone with his "past" shouldn't be in public life let alone represent this country. Amanda Platell's newspaper column put it very succinctly yesterday (see below):
Curious that everyone is asking how French bank trader Jerome Kerviel was able to make £3.7billion vanish without anyone noticing. Gordon Brown made more than £50billion vanish from our pension funds, and he's ended up in No.10. The only mystery is why Kerviel hasn't already been appointed Chancellor ?
Nice quote.
But Brown won't be going anywhere unless he loses the next election, or experiences a 'night of the long knives' before it. This is a guy who coveted the position and waited around for it for ten years! We're stuck with him until when is it, the latest date for an election?
V
I think that people like Brown/Blair/Bush etc are just puppets - they get their strings pulled, get their marching orders from behind the scenes from faceless vested interests and global corporations.
I feel a bit sorry for Brown getting all this stick, as if he was the master mind behind British, US and global policy over the last 10 years!!!
I feel a bit sorry for Brown getting all this stick, as if he was the master mind behind British, US and global policy over the last 10 years!!!
🙂 I think the real point is that he really isn't much at all, and most people in the UK can see it, just as by the end almost all saw this of Blair. It's 'frustrating' to spend so long without a leader. Not that we want to be bossed around; but it would be good to have leaders with genuine, authentic commitment, self-disinterest, and open clarity, honesty. It's really not too much to ask - for such people should be leaders anyway.
V
II feel a bit sorry for Brown getting all this stick, as if he was the master mind behind British, US and global policy over the last 10 years!!!
I feel even more sorry for the pensioners (and future pensioners) that he's robbed, the people (whose houses were ruined) that he ignored during the last floods, the people who are suffereing due his disasterous terms in office as Chancellor and the people whose health, safety, jobs and education are suffering due to his inertness and lack of enthusiasm in tackling the main problems this country has.
To an extent - yes he is a puppet - but in politics (as in life) sometimes you have to make the best job out of being dealt a bad hand. During his time as chancellor he grossly mis-managed things (despite Blair praising him - well he would wouldn't he - he not gonna criticise Brown in public) and was probably only there due to Blair being slightly wary of him and his outbursts and because no-one else could do the job either.
Although I an cynical of Hillary Clinton's eye watering statement that she "doesn't want to see this country[USA] fall backwards) - I agree with her sentiments and don't want to see Britain fall back either and frankly Brown and his Government are doing nothing about all the things that need to be tackled. It can't be a lack of money - heaven forbid -we're taxed to the hilt as it is. Oh sorry - I forgot - all the billions that hard working people have to hand over in taxes and the money nicked from pensions goes to "worthwhile" causes like keeping the workshy (not the people who can't work due being severely disabled) on benefits and such like.
Do you suppose Brown did these things because he is a evil, nasty piece of work, who became Chancellor and PM due to personal merit and on his own steam?
Or because he was told what to do then by his masters who put him in his position?
Look at Bush for a clearer example, you surely don't believe he became the President of the US on personal merit and personal qualities?
A puppet is puppet, if a puppet becomes unpopular after doing the puppet masters dirty work diligently (like Brown, Bush and Blair) against all public opposition, then the puppet mater just replaces him for another - to appease the public for a short while.
I'm suggesting that you do not focus your anger at the puppet, but you look at the puppet masters - the global corporations, the people that control the money, the vested interests - they are the real thieves and crooks.
I feel even more sorry for the pensioners (and future pensioners) that he's robbed, the people (whose houses were ruined) that he ignored during the last floods, the people who are suffereing due his disasterous terms in office as Chancellor and the people whose health, safety, jobs and education are suffering due to his inertness and lack of enthusiasm in tackling the main problems this country has.
To an extent - yes he is a puppet - but in politics (as in life) sometimes you have to make the best job out of being dealt a bad hand. During his time as chancellor he grossly mis-managed things (despite Blair praising him - well he would wouldn't he - he not gonna criticise Brown in public) and was probably only there due to Blair being slightly wary of him and his outbursts and because no-one else could do the job either.
Sorry James – I profoundly disagree with you. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this.
By your analogy it’s inferring that people (although they work for corporations, large business, political leaders) have no integrity or moral conscience. They just dance to the tune of the puppeteer. Many people DO have a moral conscience and give up a job/position if they’re asked to do something that they profoundly disagree with. Admittedly it’s getting rarer and rarer but nevertheless it happens. O.K. if you have no conscience then you can do anything you’re asked to do and are happy to make a Faustian pact until you’re caught. Then it’s "We were obeying orders" – like what happened in the Nazi regime. Many Nazis and people working for that regime could have chosen NOT to do something – but they didn’t – they carried out orders.
Brown has nauseatingly made much of his morality. I’m afraid he can’t have it both ways. He has committed serious acts of mis-management and if he’d had a conscience he could have said "NO" and resigned. That would have been the honourable thing to have done. Others have done this – so why not him ?? His political career and power was probably more important to him than a guilty conscience and being a decent human being. His job is to protect our interests as much as possible – his job is not to ignore problems in our economy, health service etc.
I see James' point, but yours too Happygirl. It's a choice to be a puppet, and a choice not to turn against your 'masters'. As the saying goes, "To get along [in these circles] you have to go along". So Brown isn't a puppet in the sense that someone's pulling his strings - all along he wanted to get along, as a person, by going along with the elite.
V
Sorry James – I profoundly disagree with you. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this.
Your welcome to disagree with me happygirl - I often disagree with myself!
By your analogy it’s inferring that people (although they work for corporations, large business, political leaders) have no integrity or moral conscience. They just dance to the tune of the puppeteer. Many people DO have a moral conscience and give up a job/position if they’re asked to do something that they profoundly disagree with. Admittedly it’s getting rarer and rarer but nevertheless it happens. O.K. if you have no conscience then you can do anything you’re asked to do and are happy to make a Faustian pact until you’re caught. Then it’s "We were obeying orders" – like what happened in the Nazi regime. Many Nazis and people working for that regime could have chosen NOT to do something – but they didn’t – they carried out orders.
Its not as simple as that, sometimes politics, economics and business decisions are not so black and white. I think that 99% of people in senior positions are ethical, have integrity and a a moral conscience, but they will still do things that are bad. Look at corporations like Monsanto, Haliburton or even McDonalds
If you are running a profitable business and you ask for funding - you might get that (from the 1% with the money), so long as you do as you are told as regards business policy. You do not necessarily know the future, or how your decisions will effect the business, the public or the environment.
Blair and Brown presumably were told in the 1991 Bilderburg and subsequent meetings what they were expected to do - a marriage of Government and Business/Corporations/Industry, where the Government does as it is told, which may well be against the interest of the workers or the public but might be beneficial over the long run. They seemed to have followed tis policy to the letter.
The real agenda now looks as if it was to rob and imprison the tax payer and enslave the public in a fascist state, but Brown/Blair may not have been aware of this.
Consider for example 'Browns decision' around 1999 to sell half of Britains gold reserves, which then more then tripled, costing the taxpayer billions.
Did Brown come up with this idea all by himself?
Did Brown know that gold would rise like that in value?
Did he pocket from the sale? Who pocketed?
Who owns the gold that britain and other countries sold around that time?
Did Blair/Brown know that 911, Afgahan war, Iraq war, US dollar collapse, Euro rise, gold rise, oil price rise, etc were planned in 1999?
The same applies to other decisions like ID cards, Security, Surveillance Cameras, pensions, etc.
Also, I don't know what behind the scenes pressures Brown is under, I'm sure that it is a considerable amount of pressure. Do you know what happened to Robin Cook soon after he announced that 'Al-Quida' was the name of the CIA database of their operatives in the middle east? Cook died of a mysterious heart attack. The previous Labour leader before Blair (Smith) also conveniently died of heart attack.
Do you know what happened to Robin Cook soon after he announced that 'Al-Quida' was the name of the CIA database of their operatives in the middle east? Cook died of a mysterious heart attack. The previous Labour leader before Blair (Smith) also conveniently died of heart attack.
Good heavens, James, you've given me yet more food for thought. Or rather to feed my incipient paranoia with regard to the possibility of yet another conspiracy theory. I had never previously considered that Robin Cook's and/or John Smith's untimely deaths might be suspicious but, having just googled 'Robin Cook, suspicious death' came across an interesting blog.
( http://shaphan.typepad.com/blog/2006/05/questions_about.html if anyone's interested.)
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Oh yes, Gordon Brown? Going from bad to worse IMHO. Why, oh why, does he keep backing plans to spend loads of our money on such blighted projects as ID cards, which no one seems to want. Although, happygirl, I did hear on the radio this morning that they're going to force benefit claimants into work, by hook or by crook!
xxx
Hmm, I used to follow the power elite and semi-secret societies deeply in the 1980s, but there's not time for everything so I've completely taken my eye off the Bilderburg meetings. Yes, of course, Brown and Blair will have been there - I'm pretty sure attendee lists are online right? - as they started getting published even before the internet came out.
What would be fascinating fun would be to record how the mass media explain that world leaders have all disappeared from their posts for about three days, without giving a clue as to where they are. I've never thought to look it up. Just silence I suppose.
(I was happy BTW to be far and away the smallest player, but one of the three people - Anthony Sutton principally - who brought Skull and Bones out more into the public gaze, so that they're not secret any more - well, they are, but not their existence. We spread Bush Snr's membership around so widely that it forced him to be the first President to admit to being a member. That was fun.)
V
Blair and Brown presumably were told in the 1991 Bilderburg and subsequent meetings what they were expected to do
I sometimes wonder if the Bilderberg meetings aren't a bit overrated.
On the subject of Brown, I think he only went to one meeting, and that was way back in 1991. Of course, there are ways of keeping in contact other than attending meetings. Some truly good people have gone to meetings however. If I was invited I'd go - why not check it out and meet these people? Which is no doubt why some others go.
Years back someone got a copy of the actual speaches made at a meeting. They weren't up to much and certainly not conspiratorial - openly. (Of course, no-one comes right out and says what they mean. It's something you are expected to understand.)
I found a record of Blair going, but a few years after - 1993 I think. Here's part of the list for 2006 showing no Gordon Brown.
V