thecredo

Archive for the ‘Gordon Brown’ Category

Why it’s important that the car exchange was aired

In editorial, Gordon Brown, the labour party on April 28, 2010 at 21:01

The story has well made the rounds by now. As have the images of Gordon Brown with his head in his hands, looking completely gutted in front of Jeremy Vine.  But, a question has been raised about the ethics of airing the exchange between Brown and a member of his staff following the encounter with Mrs. Duffy.

Well, let’s put this out front right away. The comments were made by a public servant, on a campaign stop funded by the British taxpayer, while sitting in a Jaguar paid for by the electorate.  Of course it’s ethical.

The media exists to provide the citizenry with the information they need to make informed decisions and live freely in a democratic society.

If the Prime Minister thinks they’re bigots, they have the right to know.  Besides, if he was stupid enough to forget he was wearing a live mic, it’s his own damn fault.  Period.

That said, we can’t help but feel somewhat sorry for him.  He’s losing spectacularly.  Lavishly.  He knows that.  His own party is now questioning his position as leader.  The pressure he is under must be immense and while he doesn’t deserve to be Prime Minister, he does at least deserve a certain amount of sympathy.

We’d like to point out that Mr. Vine could very easily have amplified the outcome of the gaffe live on the air.  He didn’t.  That is a credit to him as a broadcaster.  We’ve always thought Jeremy to be a gentleman, and today he really showed his true colours.  Good job, Jeremy.

However, getting back to what we said earlier; it was important that the exchange was aired, having been recorded – accidentally or not.

If the Prime Minister actually believes what he said – and there can be no doubt that he does – then the public needs to know.  It reveals some very important things about his views on immigration.

In other words, throw wide the doors of Great Britain.  To offer up constraints in the manner that Mrs. Duffy would like would be to admit a bigoted, narrow view of what a multi-cultural society ought to look like.

The sage academy of the Cabinet know what it should look like. Nobody else.

Just look at this – from October 2009 (thank you, Telegraph):

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”.

Hmmm.

So, if you’re not on board with Labour’s immigration policies, you’re a bigot – and you deserve to have your nose rubbed in it.  Or you’re a working class drone that doesn’t have the right to an opinion.  Or if you do have an opinion, you have a right to keep quiet and let the Dear Leader do What He Knows Is Right For Britain.

In the end, BigotGate is not all that remarkable, as all it does is serve to exemplify all that is wrong with the Labour endeavour, and more specifically all that is wrong with Gordon Brown.

Spit or swallow: The Labour government begins the long goodbye

In editorial, Gordon Brown, the labour party on April 25, 2010 at 08:51

The Sunday Telegraph has reported that the Labour government may have started a long goodbye, following the revelation of persistent in-fighting among senior party leaders.

“Lord Mandelson ordered Harriet Harman, the party’s deputy leader, to “shut up” and told her he did not want to hear from her again, in a dispute over election strategy,” report Patrick Hennessy and Melissa Kite.

Disagreements, some quite bitter, range from campaign strategy to fresh leadership should the Labour party fail to win a majority.

The real story here though is that senior party strategists appear to be preparing to bring yet another unelected Prime Minister to power, this time in the person of David Miliband.  A party that may now – twice in a row – present the country with an unelected PM, ought not to be considering strategy, but withdrawal.

…the major role [in post-debate TV interviews] was played by Mr Miliband – with Lord Mandelson, who had taken the main “spin” role the previous week, absent.

A Labour insider said: “The plan was clearly to promote David [Miliband] and give him exposure with the future in mind. The official reason – that ministers were all being given a turn to mix it up – is obviously rubbish.

Harriet Harman, who is leading the campaign strategy, has widely circulated details of her humiliation at the hands of Lord Mandelson.  Last week, she appeared to have been shifted to the back seat following a row over strategy in which Mandelson told her to “shut up”.

The picture this morning is of a party desperately fighting for its life, in complete disarray with factions fighting internal battles, rather than presenting an image of unity and Harmany (yes, we know). Strategically speaking, the Labour rows could not possibly have come at a more difficult time for the party.

This is definitely not the time to be rethinking campaign strategy, with just two weeks to go before the election.

The fact that one of the factions already has its own name and identity – the “ultras” – only serves to solidify the notion that the Labour party is gasping for breath, and quickly sinking into oblivion.

…the “ultras” faction backs Mr Miliband – and hopes that key roles in a power-sharing government would be taken by Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, and Lord Mandelson, who could achieve his long-cherished ambition of being foreign secretary.

Sources close to the Miliband camp say they would have “no problem” in offering the post of Chancellor to Vince Cable, the Lib Dem Treasury spokesman, with Mr Clegg also given a senior Cabinet job.

May 6 leaves the Labour voter with just two choices: spit or swallow.  One way or another, Labour will be expelled.

Telegraph’s friendly fire fuels Clegg campaign

In David Cameron, editorial, ge2010, Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg, the conservatives, The Great Debate on April 23, 2010 at 09:55

With great thanks to The Daily Telegraph, Nick Clegg got just the boost in exposure he needed to come very close to clinching the second of the leadership debates in Bristol, last night.

We were left puzzled over why the Telegraph decided to run with the story they did, yesterday, mainly because there really isn’t much of a story there at all.  It was intended to – evidently – depict Clegg as just another one of the boys.  It back-fired though into a massive crash as Clegg looked – once again – more the victim and outsider to traditional ‘jobs-for-the-boys’  politics, surging ahead in many polls following the debate.

The Lib-Dems played the scandal perfectly, not giving it the purchase that was intended by simply brushing it off as nonsense and by not reacting in any substantive way at all, really.  It was a master stroke by the Clegg handlers and an inspired bit of public relations.

What it will mean for the Tories is yet to be seen, with Cameron coming across much stronger last night – though still falling short of the target of ‘knock-out punches’ in the Sky debate.

Dave does seem to be loosening up a bit, but the Tories need to concentrate on letting him be himself as the election looms ever closer.  PR is about taking calculated risks, and so far the Tories seem – with a few exceptions – reluctant to do this, opting instead to stay in the safe, calmer waters of generalization and vagueness.

All is not lost, though, as Cameron has proven himself more than capable of serious political discourse in the past.

We think he needs to 1) stop assuming the electorate to be incapable of grasping complex political concepts, 2) open up all the stops on the console of the Cameron organ – let fly, be passionate, take the risks, 3) hammer away at the Lib-Dems and Labour – concentrate on policy, not personality.  The electorate is much more intelligent and informed than – we think – any of the leaders appear to believe.

Bring it home, Dave.  We know you can do it.  The question is, do you?

Labour “proud of [their] record on civil liberties”

In David Cameron, Europe, ge2010, Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg on April 17, 2010 at 10:02

The government that brought in more than 3600 new criminal laws (that’s about one new law for every day they’ve been in power), put CCTV on every street corner, abused NHS databases for their own gain, and wants to fingerprint our children without our permission now says that they are defenders of civil liberty.

This leaves us with one question: Where is this bizarro planet of which they speak, and how can we destroy it?

Dylan Sharpe, of Big Brother Watch has written an important article outlining where the “Big Three” stand on matters of civil liberties and the surveillance state, which is well worth a read.

Big Brother Watch have also published a manifesto, drawing on their considerable background in the defense of liberty that addresses some points key to upholding civil liberties in the United Kingdom.

It is important, they say, not to be lulled into complacency by either the Tories or the Lib-Dems, simply because of their stand on the bloated Nanny State.

It is a common theme in the fight for liberty, privacy and freedom; but strong words spoken outside Whitehall often get muffled once the party in question finds itself in government with the bread-and-butter issues of economy, schools and health to deal with. The general opposition from the Tories and Lib Dems to large state databases should be praised; but neither party makes any effort to put forward a timetable for their removal or explain, where necessary, what form the replacement system will take.

After the National Identity Register and DNA database, the most intrusive elements of surveillance faced by the British public come from the intercept modernisation programme – the plan to store and monitor our phone calls and emails – and the automatic numberplate recognition (ANPR) camera network – which tracks around 14 million drivers each day. The opposition parties only make fleeting references to the former and no reference to the latter in their manifestos.

The economy, immigration, and the whole lot of other platforms on which the parties are campaigning are very important.  But, we – like Big Brother Watch – believe that even more important is the insidious encroachment of Labour’s bedroom eyes into our lives.

Govern yourselves accordingly.

Tories promise crackdown on police abuse of civil liberties

In Chris Grayling, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, the conservatives, the labour party on April 15, 2010 at 13:49

Posted via iPhone so don’t write me to bitch about the formatting. 😉

Massive increase in police use of terrorism stop and search

Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:42:00 GMT

Chris Grayling reacts to new Home Office figures revealing a huge increase in the number of people being stopped and searched by the police as potential terrorists.

Many people, particularly amateur photographers, have said that the Government has allowed the police to misuse counter-terror powers to target innocent tourists and bystanders.

“Gordon Brown and Labour have trampled our civil liberties for far too long”, said Grayling.

“Whether they’re trying to impose ID cards, or allowing hundreds of thousands of innocent people to be stopped and searched under Terrorism powers, they always seem to think the state knows best”.

Figures show:

The number of people stopped and searched increased by 66 per cent between 2007/8 and 2008/9, the most recent year for which figures have been released.
210,000 people were stopped and searched in 2008/9 under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Yet only nine people were arrested for terrorism offences. That is 0.004 per cent of those who were stopped and searched under Section 44.
There has been a huge increase in the use of the powers in the last few years. In 2006/7, the year after the 7/7 bombings, only 42,800 people were stopped and searched.
“We can’t go on like this”, added Grayling. “Conservatives will end the abuse of stop and search powers as part of a full review of all Labour’s counter-terrorism laws”.

Francis Maude writes Sir Gus: Election meetings should not be permitted on NHS premises

In Gordon Brown, the labour party on April 12, 2010 at 20:33

This is the full text of Francis Maude’s letter to Sir Gus regarding Labour’s flagrant abuse of an NHS Hospital as the launching pad for their manifesto.

Dear Sir Gus,

I am writing to complain about a flagrant breach of General Election guidance by the Labour Party over their cynical use of a hospital to launch their manifesto.

You will be aware that Labour today launched their manifesto at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham.  As part of this launch, Gordon Brown and Harriet Harman both gave keynote speeches in a new wing of the hospital, decorated with Labour Party branding, and both made political references to it, saying it ‘embodies the timeless ideal of compassion in action’.

This completely contravenes the Cabinet Office’s General Election guidance which prohibits election meetings from taking place on NHS premises:

‘Election meetings should not be permitted on NHS premises’ (General Election     Guidance 2010, Cabinet Office; emphasis their own)

This breach of the rules is completely unacceptable and I ask you to investigate how this was allowed to happen.  In particular, I would be grateful if you could provide answers to the following questions:

·         What communications took place between the Labour Party and the NHS Trust regarding the use of the hospital?

·         Was the Department of Health aware that the hospital was to be used in this way?

What involvement did Sir Albert Bore, the Chairman of the NHS Trust and leader of the Labour group in Birmingham, play in organising this event?

Were any services at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital disrupted by the presence of hundreds of party activists, journalists and politicians at the Labour Party’s event?

Labour claim that this guidance has not been breached as the new wing is a PFI project, not an opened hospital and is therefore owned by private firm.  However, Gordon Brown described it as a ‘new acute NHS hospital that will be open within weeks’ in his speech.  He is therefore clearly using the fact that it is an NHS hospital for electoral gain, contrary to your guidance.  Considering the imminence of the General Election, I would also be grateful if you could deal with this request as quickly as possible.

Yours sincerely,

Francis Maude

Labour actually HAVE screwed the pooch

In Gordon Brown, the labour party, wth on April 11, 2010 at 22:01

So much for safeguarding our personal data, eh Gord?

This story, from all sorts of sources, obviously, just takes the baked pudding.  Iain Dale has some good comment on it, over here, as well.

It is simply not tenable to say, as Labour do, that these leaflets aren’t targeted. Only a quarter of a million have been sent out, so some sort of targeting must have happened. If they didn’t get the data from inappropriate sources, then they must have used Mosaic or Experian to target likely current or future cancer sufferers.

Either way, it’s a disgusting way to campaign.

It’s worth noting that if the Tories, or Lib-Dems had done this, we would be saying the same thing.  “Definitely not on, old boy.”

Brown ignores public, on SkyNews

In editorial, Gordon Brown, the labour party, wth on April 7, 2010 at 18:12

Face it, he did say Labour would listen to the public.  He did ignore a very reasonable question from a member of the public.

But, two points to keep in mind:

  1. He was in a very dangerous situation, from a PR perspective.  Questions in that context aren’t controlled, and there is no recourse to get the guy to shutup if he doesn’t like the answer he gets.  That can quickly escalate into a shouting match.  Bad idea to respond on the spot, all round.
  2. While we think Labour has made a dog’s breakfast of the country – and really do believe Dave will Save – we would have told Mr. Brown he took the best route out he could, under the circumstances, and given his hideous manner with the electorate.

Things he could have done differently?  Well, that’s an easy one.  Wipe that stupid effing smirk off his face!

Or, get the guy’s details and stand him up in front of a crowd.  Tell him his children will be taken care of – later.  That way they control the story, and not the media – and especially not the bloggers, who are going to play a crucial role in this election.  That’s a good thing, by the way.

And now, we shall sit back and watch the Conservatives, the MSM and the bloggers bitch slap him until it blows over.

Boris’ guide to the Election – Pt. I

In Boris Johnson, Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg, the labour party, the lib-dems, wth on April 7, 2010 at 11:49

We didn’t write this, these guys did. And a good job at that.  Click here for the full verision, over on CyberBoris (cheap pics from thecredo)

Boris on Nick Clegg, and the Lib-Dems

“With his purple ties, his neat grey suits and his air of youthful earnestness, he’s like some cut-price edition of David Cameron hastily knocked off by a Shanghai sweatshop to satisfy unexpected market demand.”

“The Lib Dems are not just empty.  They are a void, within a vacuum, surounded by a vast inanition.”

Boris on Gordon Brown

“Gordon Brown has lots of things going against him.  He’s a nail biting, gloomadon popping, anxious, high taxing, high spending, bossing, nannying, interfering kind of Scot.”

With special thanks to CyberBoris, for the quotes.

TwitterGate: Brown fakes crowd

In Gordon Brown, the labour party, wth on April 6, 2010 at 16:51

Via GuyFawkes, ToryBear.

http://bit.ly/9ngoiE