Today at 5 pm. we saw the downfall of one of the most decent honourable and brilliant politicians that this country has ever had the good fortune to be served by. The power of the wealthy and privileged has finally succeeded in bringing down Gordon Brown. If you want to know why the attacks on him were so unrelenting and cruel it is because they; the rich and advantaged feared him, they knew that when he talked about the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor he meant it, when he talked about eliminating child poverty he meant it, feeding the world and eliminating 3rd. world disease and ignorance; he meant it and they knew that to do these things the world would have to change and they would as well and they do not want that.
Quite simply Gordon Brown was the first PM who actually wanted to change the world in favour of those less well off than ourselves and was committed to actually doing it, what made him different was his grasp of how to do it. Within that stern gruff demeanour there was a man dedicated to the cause of socialism and equality; he knew that the only way to make progress was gradually and that’s what he set out to do. In our society standing on a barricade waving a banner and making threats to bring down the establishment only gets you arrested and ridiculed by the capitalist media and he knew that and those who dedicated themselves to destroying him knew that he knew that which made him a much more dangerous enemy. They looked and saw a man of great substance who could not be persuaded to take holidays in Berlusconi’s villa or some tycoon’s yacht, a man who lives by a different code from people like Lord Ashcroft who tried and failed to blatantly buy the election. The big unyielding Fifer scared them all right and their pursuit of him was never ending and brutal.
Look for instance at Sky political editor Adam Boulton on U TUBE who completely lost the plot when forced to confront the accusations of Alaister Campbell about anti Labour anti Brown bias. Here was a man who speaks for Sky TV on political matters realizing that he had walked in to a land mine in the shape of Campbell. All Campbell had to do was prod him and all the guilt and dishonour attached to what he is obliged to do and say when told to by Murdoch came spilling out, he found himself in the untenable position of having to defend the TV station and it’s political bias which he is responsible for. He unravelled by the second as he preposterously tried to claim that Brown was treated fairly by Sky news during the election. His undoubted powers of duplicity are mighty but the great lie caught up with him here, he tried to defend the indefensible and the whole vicious travesty that he represents crumbled. If he knew anything about decency and honour he would admit what he and his employers are really about and walk away from the cesspit while he has a shred of dignity left.
Gordon could have settled some scores but he didn’t, how he managed to get through his resignation speech without mentioning the horrible treatment he has been subjected to by people like Boulton and Sky TV is beyond me but he did. Despite it all he leaves with his head high, his speech and his demeanour displayed dignity courage and bearing. His last thought was not revenge on his tormentors but to deliver a powerful blow against his natural enemies, the ones who feared him most the Tories; he has left and deliberately thrown a spanner in the works of the Tory campaign to form a coalition, loyal to Labour and his country to the end, thank you Gordon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
Is Labour going to saddle the country with another PM, chosen by the party and not the people?
If so, we can only hope it's neither Balls or Harman, both rich and privileged and both idiots
Which interview did you watch, Councillor? The one I saw, a honourable, shrewd man was arguing with Campbell, a proven liar, finally losing his temper with the bullying fool.
Campbell, Draper, McBride and Kelly, a quartet all wired into the same circuit. There's a foursome to frighten the bairns.
I hear what you say - he may have been a well meaning guy but the FACT of the matter remains that since Labour came to power the gap beteen the rich and the poor has got wider.
You're off your chump.
"Quite simply Gordon Brown was the first PM who actually wanted to change the world in favour of those less well off"
Well, that was certainly, er, 'simple' as thoughts go but I do feel a tinge of sympathy for poor old Clem who actually achieved more socialism on a Friday afternoon than Brown has achieved in a lifetime!
"what made him different was his grasp of how to do it"
Like telling the markets ahead of time that he intended to sell our gold, by which I mean, the gold that belonged to you and me, so they had plenty of time to mark the price down to bargain basement levels before they bought - utterly brilliant!
"a man dedicated to the cause of socialism and equality"
Although where or how years of huge bank bonuses come into that I am not clear!
"he had walked in to a land mine in the shape of Campbell"
No, he walked into a man described by a judge as "an unreliable witness" (or, a liar, as we prefer to call it) spewing up a stream of Goebelese. Boulton should sue.
Finally, I hope and pray that Brown's bribe succeeds in winning over the 'Tart's party' so that they and their wonderful 'rainbow coalition' - which will include your friends the Scots Nats - will be the ones to face the perfect economic storm heading this way sometime during this year. The body count at the next election in 2011 (if not sooner) will take some time to total.
(Sprite) 10/05/10
It’s the party who choose the PM not the people you are clearly ignorant of how our parliamentary system works.
Go and do some research and find out just how stupid you are, do you actually think that the death for instance of a serving PM should facilitate an election; just how daft are you?
(Byeck) 10/05/10
Yes he was so shrewd that he was ready to start throwing punches; sometimes your bias makes an awful fool of you.
(Anonymous) 10/05/10
That’s a rather careless generalisation, lots of people including the very poor have benefitted from Gordon Brown.
Very eloquent martin but why?
(David Duff) 12:22
Your comments on Gordon Brown are drivel and we have rehearsed them before. As for Campbell V Boulton what you are saying is you prefer Murdoch to Campbell, Boulton has a very guilty conscience and he should be sacked.
Terry,
Love the Labour MPs who would rather have a right wing Tory govt than PR.
Says it all really. their own interests and skins are paramount. i have ordered the popcorn and coke and will watch avidly the slaughter as 'New' and 'Old Labour slug it out over the rotten corpse.
"we have rehearsed them before."
Really? Sorry, but I really don't remember us discussing the comparison between Clem Attlee's record and Gordon Brown's. Just tell me again how you conclude that "Gordon Brown was the first PM who actually wanted to change the world in favour of those less well off.
Incidentally, what did you actually think when you heard that Brown/Balls/Mandelson/Campbell (delete as necessary) were intent on offering the Scots Nats a say in the, er, 'rainbow coalition'? Come on, Councillor, you're forthright man, tell us what you thought? (It's OK, you know, for a man to weep and You're amongst friends here.)
(Anonymous) 11/05/10
“Labour MPs who would rather have a right wing Tory govt than PR”
A truly bizarre and stupid claim. If you are serious about this I suggest that you email said MP’s and put that to them.
The truth is of course that there a great many people myself included who want neither.
(David Duff) 11/05/10
I gave what is my candid opinion on Brown he is without doubt the foremost politician in my life time.
I will offer you my opinion on the rainbow coalition you allude to if you tell me where you got the information that we were ready to include the SNP.
This is possibly the most transparent example of just how little you actually know about politics particularly Scottish politics. As a Labour stalwart in Scotland let me offer you something on the SNP; if it looks, sounds and smells like a rat it is usually a rat.
You see Terry, this is why you and your party are now an irrelevancy. If you just have a quick glance at you postings from the last couple of days and, in particular, your replies in the Comments section, even you must admit that you come over apallingly. Some humility in defeat would probably work better than clinging on by the last ragged vestiges of your fingernails to your prejudices and tribal bigotry. Terry, it doesn't work any more, people hate this aspect of politics.
(Anonymous) 10:52
I seem to have upset you; I’m doing fine.
If we are irrelevant what are the Lib. / Dems. and the Snp ? Do we have a one party state now, you are an idiot aren't you.
Thank you for sharing your usual disingenuous, but unique take on the election and the Parliamentary system, Councillor.
Let me help you, and do try to keep up...Three things:
The Labour Party did not lose the election, Brown, helped by Mrs Duffy, lost it for them.
The country would not stand for yet another Labour imbecile becoming PM without facing the electorate.
Finally, because we're awfy fond of you, dont watch PM's Questions - Cameron vs Harman will be a massacre.
(Sprite) 12/05/10
1/ polls have already shown that Mrs. Duffy had little or no effect.
2/ we have a parliamentary system not a presidential one; I doubt if you are capable of grasping this though so I will do my best to simplify it for you. According to ‘sprite’ we could have the following scenario; Cameron gets hit by a bus, it’s a general election, Joe bloggs gets elected and promptly gets hit by a bus, it’s another election, Jane Bloggs gets elected and gets hit by a bus also and it’s another election Etc. Etc. add to this hilarious logic of yours we find that there are precedents for people becoming PM without being elected. Please tell me this registering.
3/ Harman has dealt with PMQ’s with ease in the past.
Terry @ 12.18
Some damn careless bus drivers in London, but on with the show.
Terry love, the polls got just about everything wrong in this election, so why not the Duffy effect?
And in the absence of any spirited defence, I take it you agree that Brown lost Labour the election.
Harman handled Hague with ease at PMQ's...? Go have a lay down, Terry and I'll send Matron in with your medication
(Sprite) 13/05/10
Do you have a problem with memory? We have done all this.
Terry,
I have never voted any other way than Labour but if you are actually suggesting that Brown is a major and genuine representative of the left of the party, or anywhere near a socialist, then you really ought to do a bit or reading on Socialism-things like general ownership, redistribution, and democratic control, tend to come up quite a bit! Oh aye, and not being a warmonger and not being survile to the financial markets comes up fairly often! If Brown is what the Party 'left' amounts to then I will burn my Party card! Brown is a sort of Victorian civic paternalist of the religiously inclined, much like those 'benign' factory owners such as Rowntree and so on. Is this the same Brown who prodcued a 'middle class manifesto' to win the election? Please do not try and sell me Brown as a man of the left now he is gone from office-it is already an embarrasment to the party the amount of 'rightwing free-market socialists' (whatever that means-must be a sort of public private deal at the level of morality!) who are now going on about how they really 'had nothing to do' with the 'war' and the supine posture to the banks and markets!
No excuses! The Nats and the Tories will bury themsleves in sleaze and failure for sure, but we need to be honest and clean out our digestive system pretty quick!
(Anonymous) 14:40
Does Gordon Brown want the following :-
general ownership, redistribution, and democratic control? Yes.
War? No. Peace? Yes.
To be survile to the financial markets? No.
Full employment? Yes. Etc. Etc.
I suspect he also wants’ an end to privilege starting with the Monarchy through the Lords and the profiteers and shysters in the city as well but, perhaps he realises what would happen to us with that Manifesto.
You might think you know about Socialism; that’s fair enough but you seem to know very little about our enemies and that’s how they like it.
He may well believe that Socialism will be difficult to achieve and he might even think that his way is the best way; I believe that Brown seeks the same kind of society as me and that is Socialism.
It might help you to clear your head on this matter if you go and spend some time considering the campaign that was directed at him by the reactionary Tory Press. I’ve been doing this for 40 years and it’s the worst most personal and vicious I have ever seen. Worse than what Scargill; Wilson; Livingstone; Foot; Kinnock; Benn; or anyone else has had to endure; you need to explain why they did this to a “right winger” because I have no doubt whatsoever why they wanted to destroy him so badly; they feared him; no doubt if he had been a ‘left winger’ like you they would have had him shot.
The last 'Anonymous' is quite right - or do I mean quite left? Anyway, he's absolutely correct in his analysis and oddly enough, as an antediluvian (small 't') tory, I sympathise because his view from over there on the Left is the same as mine over here on the Right.
It is extremely doubtful that he will ever live to see another Clem Attlee, a Labour leader who, I guess, came closest to his socialist ideal. Equally, I doubt I shall ever live to see another Maggie Thatcher. These *English* revolutionaries, that is, people who achieve great changes without recourse to guns and secret policemen (so unlike our dear neighbours), are very rare. In between times we must put up with lesser men with vague ideals barely remembered from their youth but with highly developed senses of power for power's sake. Thus it was with Blair and Brown, and thus it will be with Cameron and Clegg. Thank God, really, because one can only take so many 'earth movers' in a generation.
(David Duff) 08:29
Atlee; had he been what you claim with a massive landslide victory would have introduced Socialism and he didn’t; he tinkered with it. His Govt. did a great deal of good but when it came to the big one he was a political faint heart.
Thatcher was a war criminal who suspended our civil liberties to destroy the miners and the unions; she was a blue rinsed Mussolini; the country is still bleeding because of her.
Brown was destroyed by privileged people with vested interests who feared him; the country is run again by right wing reactionaries who control the media like Murdoch and, the political system is bought by sinister characters like Ashcroft, welcome to Tory Britain.
Perhaps the radical fair and honest Libdems will save us.
Oh my giddy aunt, Councillor Kelly, you really are a tonic!
I regard it as missionary work.
Terry,
If Maggie was a 'war criminal' then what are those Labour MP's one of whom is my MP) and ministers, who voted for and supported Blair's five wars? Surely you cannot be suggesting that Tory wars are bad and criminal, but Labour ones are good and legal!!!! No Terry man, for shame! Robin Cook was an honourable man, but those many that held their tongues and betrayed themsleves and the common values of peace and decency that formed the Labour Party (including Brown)are nothing but a shower of traitors and militarist bootlickers!
This was an actual question to Blair: 'If the danger from Iraq is real and present will your son be volunteering to support the effort in some way?'. Blair: 'Don't be stupid he is going to Washington to further his career, the dangers will be faced by others better trained to do so!'.
Peace and socialism eh? There are always plenty of 'others' so it seems.
Unfortunately your missionary position is not very inviting!
Dazzling wit as well you are spoiling us.
(Anonymous) 17/05/10
There are plenty in the Labour Party who opposed the Iraq war and others and there are those who supported the war and that includes my own Labour MP who discussed and debated the issue with us in good faith; he is certainly not a traitor or bootlicker, along with others I disagreed with him.
The black and white world of certainty that you seem to live in has the stench of smear about it; I don’t believe that wars are always wrong; and I don’t believe that the people who suffer in them should be used and manipulated for political ends; you ought to think about that.
Aye, I'm sure your right Terry, better not to mention it and let the disgrace fade. By the way, talking of the 'victims of war' being used as 'manipualtion' to avoid culpability is you problem not mine-your use of such phrases has the stench of hypocrisy!
(Anonymous) 10:49
I got your number right away didn’t I.
That's a pretty crude way not to answer the question. I ask again: Tory wars bad Labour wars good, is that your position? To make it easier for your self-referencing brain, I'll pose the question a little differently. Is it fine to use the Falklands War dead to make a point as you do, but 'beneath contempt' to talk of the Iraq war? You mention the Falklands War a lot is this 'disgraceful' or is it just when others do it?
My Party right or wrong so it seems-you remind me of the Party men who pushed Mayakovsky to suicide-you should read him for your soul's sake!
(Anonymous) 18:28
“Tory wars bad Labour wars good, is that your position?”
Lost the plot haven’t you.
“Is it fine to use the Falklands War dead to make a point as you do, but 'beneath contempt' to talk of the Iraq war?”
The Falklands war was started by Thatcher to save her political career; you think that is the same as Iraq or whatever? I got your number alright didn’t I.
By any unbiased estimate, the last Labour administrations have been the most interventionist and beligerent of recent times when it comes to military adventures, much more so than pervious Labour governments (even Wilson was wary of Vietnam). The Gulf War, Bosnia, Kososov,Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Iraq--there are others, military expert support for Kagame in Rwanda for example.
You should have a serious think about this, if possible outside your party-boy mind-set. Also, you should think about your words: 'wars' are 'not' always wrong'. All wars are wrong but some may be unavoidable or necessary-this is a serious distinction that in your rush to justify your Party, you seem to have missed. I would suggest Pufendorf 'On the Duty of Man and Citizen' as the place to go for the notion of 'just war'!
Here is your grade: C- (some interesting ideas but must try harder to be consistent and coherent, and has a tendency to avoid the question).
(Anonymous) 08:20
“By any unbiased estimate”
You start by giving me a problem, is this meant to be funny?
“All wars are wrong”
Maybe you should watch your words, all wars are not wrong.
If I were to grade you I would describe you as pompous and sounding like you are trying to convince yourself not me; like most people of your mind set you would love to dive in to the semantic dirty water around just and good wars – very weak; very quisling.
Kelly @ 2.42
Terry, which of Labours wars do you consider to be 'not wrong?'
Let me explain to you. Let us take the war to oust Batista. Was it necessary? Of course! Was it unavoidable? Certainly! Therefore it was a just war. If it was simply 'not wrong' then that means it was 'right' If it was simply 'right', then it is correct to wage such a war when it is both avoidable and unnecessary. Do you seriously believe that Castro and Guevara would wage such a war if it was unnecessary and avoidable, and they could have achieved the same result by other means? The idea of 'right' war is a Neitzshean idea based on the notion of glorious perpetual conflict-certainly not a socialist concept.
If it is 'right' to wage war against the BNP, then why not just go out and smash them with a shovel? Answer; it is not 'right' because it is unnecessary (we have not yet exhausted active political means)and it is avoidable (they are not attacking us with shovels-yet). I do hope this clarifies things for you. As I say, have a look at the Pufendorf you may even enjoy it-you do not strike me as entirely bereft of critical judgment
Cheerio!
Aye Terry, I'm sure your right about that fella, but at least he is only inclined to dive into semantics, as opposed to 'diving' in to the 'murky waters' of a real war like the Labour government and your fellas Bliar and Brown! Here man, you get more upset by semantics than your role Party's role in a devastating war, sober up man!
Ha!
Allan
(Anonymous) 20/05/10
It seems you don’t read my blog very closely or you would know that this is rubbish.
"Blair and Brown are liars" no they are not; how did you arrive at that conclusion?
(Anonymous) 19/05/10
I did not and do not support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but; I suspect that you know that don’t you and you also know that I am certainly not unique in the Labour Party. Perhaps you should tell me which wars were wrong and why then we could see if I agree with your reasoning.
(Anonymous) 19/05/10
You were always heading here weren’t you; you stated that all wars were wrong and now you are desperately trying to dig yourself out of the mess by using convoluted semantic arguments.
Let me repeat it for you “all wars are not wrong” you should think a bit longer before making such stupid statements; put it down to experience.
Post a Comment