How punters reacted to the Brown speech
September 25th, 2006-
Gamblers not convinced so the Chancellor’s odds move out
The chart shows the changes during the past six hours in the Gordon Brown price for the Labour leadership.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Not alot of movement then
I’ve seen many of Brown’s speeches over the last 15 years. This one was dull and bland. Yes it ticked the right boxes, but he has delivered much better speeches. As the crown gets closer he may be playing a little safe.
I wonder if the BBC will give Reid, Johnson and other mooted candiates extensive coverage also!
Wishful thinking by his enemies or David Davis syndrome ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/video/page/0,,1880648,00.html gives Julian Glover’s take on it.
As before I think Gordon will walk the leadership contest, though I do think there will probably be one.
There must be some very nervous Lib Dems at Party HQ today as their “biggest donor was jailed for two years today for what a judge branded “very deliberate and pointed” dishonesty.
The flamboyant financier Michael Brown, 40, first gave false information in a affidavit and then tricked the authorities into giving him a new passport.
The Glaswegian bonds trader, whose £2.4 million political gift last year helped the party to bankroll its general election campaign, was eventually tracked to Majorca earlier this year.”
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article1753505.ece
Will the next step be for the authorities to seek to recover any of his funds??
Keep trying Rik, someone will listen soon…
5 These particular charges were purely related to passport offences . We will have to see what the result is of any possible charges relating to HSBC .
The answer to your first paragraph is probably not and the last paragraph no it will not be the authorities next step .
7. Ah well just a fraudulent passport application so far, that’s all right then. Obviously a minor offence which no-one should be concerned about, hence the light sentence. No question at all that the Lib Dems’ biggest donor is a criminal and no reason at all to be embarassed.
8. I suppose the difference between this guy and the Tory donors is that he was just unlucky to get caught…
Being connected to criminal donors is perhaps the latest attempt for the Lib Dems at demonstrating a ‘liberal’ ecomomic policy! Maybe some of them are liberal, but others are more liberal than others.
Dozer - or is that Dozey? - I think a prison sentence is a pretty stiff sentence for such a “minor” crime!
The diffence between the Tories and the Lib Dems in this case is that a couple of individual Conservative MPs trousered a thousand or so pounds to ask a question, whereas almost the entire Lib Dem general election campaign was financed by a proven criminal!
Hmmmmmmm!
9. Oh of course - all donors are criminals so this one is nothing special! An even better excuse.
9 Dozer. Michael Brown should have gone to Northern Cyprus and swapped war stories with Azil Nadir, that other well known donor who of course payed back every penny…..NOT.
11 Rik W. See 13.
Jack W correct me if I am wrong but Mr Nadir has not been convicted of any crime has he?
Michael Brown has!
Lord Ashcroft of Belize! Whether it be donors committing offences or living in tax havens, there is still an unpleaseant smell coming from many of those who donate to large political parties.
I’m amazed that Blair has managed to survive this long if what they say about Cherie is true. Could she really have done something so stupid? If so and it becomes the major story then there are going to be some very angry delegates when Tony comes to speak. IF it’s true and anyone wants a bet how about Tony to go this year. He and his dysfunctional family can then be left to sort themselves out without the public having to be involved.
The more I hear the more confident I am that Gordon will be an outstanding leader. And I like the new selling message that Brown is an unspun politician. Excellent tactic against his obviously synthetic opponent
Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, isn’t it rather amazing that Would-be Premier Gordon promises to undo everything the previous administration has done and give power back to the people (presumably he has only had a very tangential relationship with power over the past nine years).
Whoops, fooled again - power to the people means, like, power to the quangos (a popular move with the brothers, no doubt).
Maybe, just like dear old Tone, Gordon’s clothes are looking just a little transparent…..
If only the Lib Dems had done a bit of research, they would have known they were dealing with someone who was pretty dodgy….but of course the lure of big bucks or too many drams might have blurred their judgement…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-1845073,00.html
15. Azil Nadir is a fugitive from justice. By that token Osama Bin Laden hasn’t been convicted!!
I would have thought that the best strategy for Brown would be to keep out of the spotlight.
The more that people think that he will take over from Blair, the more TV interviews and scutiny he gets,the worse his poll ratings are.
17 - “And I like the new selling message that Brown is an unspun politician”
Roger, was that really unintended irony? If not, you’re a comic genius (as well as an Oscar winning director)
18. One of the saddest things in my opinion is that all the talk about devolving power is not challenged by the public. I believe that the general apathy towards politics makes the public disinterested in being involved in local decision making. this may seem controversial but apathy towards devloved power also stems from people solely focusing on their individual lives. People claim they are too busy to attend PTA meetings. Of course the power goes to quango’s, because the people do not demand greater devolution of power.
22 - Ha ha ha. Roger is the greatest advert for Anybody But Labour.
15 Rik W. It’s always a pleasure to correct you Rik !! Whip or cane ??
Nadir was prosecuted at the Old Bailey in 1993 on various multi million pound fraud charges, but decided a short 13 year holiday in Northern Cyprus was more suitable. Strangely Briton has no extradition treaty with Northern Cyprus. He presently owes £35 million plus interest to creditors. Strangely the Tories didn’t cash their chips in on the chap and more funnily haven’t repaid a penny piece of his considerable donations.
BTW how much nationwide allocated foreign cash helped in Sutton ?? …… Don’t know …… funnily neither does the public !!
11. Rik - big difference. The Lib Dems did not know at the time MB was a crook and took the money, openly and declared, in good faith. I’m a member of the FE (national board of the party) and have been assured countless times by staff that all procedures were correctly followed and that the Party was very open from the beginning to the electoral commission with its paperwork.
You and I know full well that for years the Tories had been accepting dirty oney from dubious sources outside the UK and to give Blair credit - that was (mostly) only stopped when Labour brought in the new rules in the late 90’s.
In fact if memory serves me right - Cameron has still refused to name some of the major donors who ‘loaned’ the Party squillions before the last GE, which Labour has at leat done, as have the Lib Dems - albeit our squillions are small feed compared to the other two parties, sadly!
Does it smell like cash for passports?
there was a similar case involving the hindujas similiarly there was no corruption.
or with Mittal…
or Ecclestone…
or Drayson…
Vote Labour!
[15] Words utterly fail me, Rik!!!!
He has not been convicted because -mid trial- he fled to a jurisdiction which has no extradition treaty with the UK.
Only one word describes this- hypocrite!
22. You’re much too funny and bright to be a Tory. Is it some dynastic thing like the Soames or the Cameron’s? Eldest son of a baronet perhaps?
(NB We get Lions and Arrows. Only features get Oscars!).
23
I wouldn’t mind some devolved power, if it resulted in my kids university fees being on an equitable basis to those of Scottish & Welsh students, as oppossed to the blatant discrimination we have at present against the 85% majority of students in the UK.
25 - Jack W - as far as I can find he was never convicted of any offence. Charges were laid but he was not tried in his absence I understand. So under British law he is innocent until proven guilty.
26 - SAC as you can see at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-1845073,00.html
Michael Brown was already known to be dodgy. I quote “There is no precedent for a British political party keeping major funding from a donor who was a wanted man when the gift was made.
The Conservatives accepted £440,000 from Asil Nadir, but that was before he was accused of fraud and fled to Northern Cyprus. Labour took £11,000 from Charilaos Costa before he was investigated for fraud”.
So it is very different!
29 - You old leonine charmer - flattery like that will get you everywhere
There are so many things to attack Brown for regarding his running of the economy that I can’t believe the other parties have been able to hold back thus far. Brown’s intellectual weakness is clear in many areas, the waste of money regarding botched and binned plans show his inability to foresee problems, his poor decision making is exemplified by the botched putsch and how tax credits have descended into administrative chaos, his narrow sightedness never clearer than the discovery that VAT fraid is costing us over right billion a year, four times that of our competitors. The list goes on…..
It’s the ‘done thing’ to suggest that Brown is all intellect and no heart - that’s wide of the mark, his intellectual application is weak while his heart attempts to be in the right place. The latter is, of course, not enough.
Blimey, did GB really speak for 6.5 hours? Or did it just feel like 6.5 hours?
Ah, I see - the graph doesn’t just cover the speech itself…
31 Rik. Huge
Do you see the slight contradiction in your post ?!?!?
On your take Michael Brown was innocent until proven guilty and thus like Nadir perfectly correct in making a donation.
Bend over Rik !!!!!!!…….. Whack
33. I’m sure if his opponents had a better idea than tax credits then they would have made that criticism. As for VAT every country in Europe has this tax so again if your Tory hero’s can think of an alternative it would be interesting to hear what it is?
Brown to be 1.5+ by tomorrow I reckon..
Looking around at newspapers websites, it didn’t seem that the reception of the speech was bad, certainly not a DD levels.
NB. The Sun’s lead like all the other papers are leading on Cherie Blair. If anyone thinks this is bad for Brown I would guess it’ll be worse for Blair
Luntz news group…the result in the end is that 17 would back Reid, 3 Brown, 3 McDonnell, 0 would back Johnson, Milburn or Miliband.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5379172.stm
40. focus group, not news group. Sorry, I was thinking about Newsnight and i mixed up everything!
33 - Any fool can see that taking people’s money off them just to give it back again is creating unnecessary bureaucracy and a dependency culture (not to mention chances for fraud, kindly taken up by the criminal classes).
As for VAT, it’s F-R-A-U-D Im talking about as well, above and beyond that of our competitors by a large degree. Where was Brown on this one?
You should have checked who sent the post anyway, I’m sure Mr Laws and Cable are not used to being described as tory heroes (well maybe they would but that’s to their credit at being trustworthy and intellectually superior to the alternatives).
Seeing as you backed yourself into a corner saying that Brown’s intellect was unimpeachable I thought it only fair to open up that front as well.
……not only is his wife a twat but No 10 denied the story when it was true.
33. Calling GB ‘intellectual weak’ is perhaps intellectually weak. I’m not a supporter of GB, but as a probation officer i see the benefits of tax credits for the most disadvataged. They maybe administratively difficult, but providing benefits based on need requires the collation of masses of data. What are the alternatives? A high basic payment to recipients, bank-rupting the country or a low rate, hurting the poorest in society. GB does seem to have an socio-economic philosophy. If GB is ‘intellectually weak’ because of the VAT fiasco or tax benefits, than every other chancellor would also be ‘intellectually weak’. Lamont, for all his smarts, would be a dunce if these standards apply!
40. Add to that the fact that in the last poll of the public, Reid, Straw and Benn were all more prefered as leader than Johnson (whose % was not even reported) and surely Johnson must have no chance.
42. Do you want him to give up the treasury and become a VAT inspector? Apparently the UK’s figures for fraud are average. Belgium made a report that was denied. Most people-even the opposition-have praised tax credits and so far I’ve heard of no-one saying they would scrap them. Have you?
The UK has a more open and robust method of detecting fraud in comparison to most EU countries. Stopping VAT fraud is extremely difficult. The alternative would be a tightening up of checks and security at the borders, airports and ports. The public would be up in arms if their civil liberties was affected as a result of VAT fraud.
I’m curious what clips of McDonnell Luntz showed the focus group.
Do we assume that Rik W is especially peeved at the choice of Lib Dem donors because Michael Brown’s cash made all the difference in a lot of marginals including Sutton?
Not to mention how bizarre it is to blame the Chancellor for fraud. I pay VAT and self employed tax. I could produce a false declaration on both and cheat the taxman or VAT inspector. If they didn’t catch me it would be going a bit far to blame the Chancellor!
[31] Errr… Rik, when in a hole, stop digging.
You can hardly lecture the Lib Dems- or Labour, whose sins are seemingly greater- while being an apologist for a fugitive from British Justice.
Over 2000 google pages refer to ‘tax credits fiasco’, that so many people cannot see the alternatives makes you worry about how much attention they really are paying. It is frightening that Brown has managed to position his ‘babies’ so that they appear unquestionable. Go back to the beginning and think about what is efficacious, it is not to take something back and then give it out again, allowing for fraud and numerous mistakes on the way. Think about it logically.
I do think that Brown is wearing the ‘chancellor’s new clothes’ and it’s about time that he was challenged. Don’t believe the hype about him being impregnable in this area (and let’s face it there are many vested interests who are happy to perpetuate the myth).
BBC leading on Cherie, bad for Brown, Nick Robinson sticking the boot in………
All they’re talking about is Cherie! What a woman. It’s going to be Reid V Brown. Put your shirts on it. Reid might perform better than some of us think. He’s just been on radio and he’s got a story to tell.
52.”BBC leading on Cherie, bad for Brown”
I didn’t get the impression that Cherie Blair was so liked and her words taken as an example of virtue.
I thought the party wanted a bit of unity and stop the infightings not a women whose ego is not second to Clare Short’s one doing the Drama Queen at the conference.
What did Cherie want? Brown saying “well, I want to get rid of Tony and his ugly wife who’s morphing into a Michael Jackson look alike?”
Well if the governemnt denied the Belgium report then that’s the end of it then…..
52 Typing in ‘Tory incompetence’ garned 59,600 hits from the UK alone. I’m not sure google searches are an exact science!
BTW- the Cherie comment seems set to strip the veneer off the Labour “lovefest”. Gritted teeth and forced smiles all round.
So stopping people carrying liquids onto a plane is okay but checking up on imports to eliminate ‘carousel fraud’ is impossible? Civil liberties seems to be a rather moveable feast for this government.
Not just about Cherie, relating it to Brown and the background. Cherie’s the Mcguffin, only there to create the story.
Well instead of saying there’s a problem why not postulate a solution. And if one is so easy to find what was the Tory or Lib Dem solution? I don’t know whether you are on PAYE but everyone who is self employed is familiar with paying and receiving tax credits due to over or under payment in previous years. It’s been going on for ever and doesn’t seem to have presented most people with a problem. It’s just that it’s impossible to know in advance what you are going to make.
GB’s false sentiments, contradicting his recent behaviour, would irk many supporters of Blair. I think it’s more than reasonable that the person who supports and cares for him most has difficulty forgiving a man who has made her husband stressed, miserable and unhappy. GB’s sniping must seriously affect their marriage, especially as GB’s often next door!!
50 - So where does the buck stop? Is responsibility no longer a feature of goverment? With Clarke laughably made to pay for Blunkett’s mistakes even when culpability is squeezed out it’s misplaced!
61. “GB’s false sentiments, contradicting his recent behaviour, would irk many supporters of Blair. I think it’s more than reasonable that the person who supports and cares for him most has difficulty forgiving a man who has made her husband stressed, miserable and unhappy.”
well, you don’t hear Sarah Brown leaving party conferences saying “that’s a lie, it’s not true that Blair thinks Brown is a good chancellor. He’s evil with my Gordon”
re 43. Maybe she didn’t get enough freebies. It’ll save the brothers from paying for her hair if she stays away anyway.
Was waiting for the ‘well, what would you do’ response. Always the point where you know that the target is rapidly becoming indefensible.
58 - not only that, it would also “be going a bit far to blame the Chancellor!” for HMRC failing to clamp down on billions of pounds worth of MTIC fraud. Ministerial responsibilty obviously being a very tricky concept for supporters of this government too then.
61/63…con…and yes, 99% it’s a false sentiment, but it’s what the script requires.
58. Someone blowing up a plane is not in the same league as VAT fraud. It’s correct and proper to give greater consideration (or suspend)to the publics civil rights when planes might be blown up, and maybe not apply the same rigid principles to VAT fraud.
My hunch is that the conference is going to be really angry with Cherie and there is a real danger that it’ll knock the gloss off Tony’s farewell on Thursday. The Sun and Indy have already said it’s their lead story and the denial by No 10 could become a story in itself. She was heard apparently by more than one journalist
43.’……not only is his wife a twat but No 10 denied the story when it was true’
what charming description would you use for Nick P then, who also claimed the story was false on the previous thread?
68 - The cost of 400 schools would seem to suggest not.
The chance of terrorist deaths has been ramped up beyond all logic; It does, of course, serve the government’s purpose to make us frightened so why doesn’t it serve their puropse to point out that we’re being defrauded of billions that could otherwise be spent on health/education etc.?
Priorities are wrong, I’d put the fraud as being more important and likely than the terrorists smuggling weapons onto planes.
The problem is that VAT fraudsters don’t make good bogeymen and they’re not going to make you look stupid by blowing up a plane and destabilising your government with relatively minimal effort.
Luntz focus group being shown on main BBC1 6pm news.
Very damaging for Brown.
4 - come on Nick tell us who you think will be involved in this contest
I’m sure Nick wasn’t privy to her first hand explanation. No 10 unfortunately would have been
ITV news being just as damning….
They’re doing the labour party’s work for them here.
43-Roger
‘……not only is his wife a twat but No 10 denied the story when it was true.’
Only a few months ago when Cherie was getting her nose stuck in the trough you were singing her praises.
What was all that stuff you were preaching at that time about how despicable it was to attack a politicians wife?
You change more than the UK weather!
69.”My hunch is that the conference is going to be really angry with Cherie and there is a real danger that it’ll knock the gloss off Tony’s farewell on Thursday”
Maybe Sarah Brown can leave the conference insulting Blair whilst he’s doing his speech
Hasn’t it been widely thought for several months that the main driving force behind the “stuff Gordon” campaign is, in fact, Cherie Blair?
72 - We seem to have watched different 6 o’clock news! I thought it came across quite well for Brown - substantial speech chunks, and most of the ‘ordinary people’ interviewed were favourable and/or said they were more favourable than before. If that was the Luntz focus group, they seem a loty less hostile than described here.
Roger - the Cherie story has been denied not just by Downing Street but by her security staff who go round with her, and the agency has admitted the original report (alleging she was in the hall at the time) was wrong. It’s basically one reporter’s word against five other people, and Nick Robinson fell back on “well, even if it isn’t true, it might have been”.
“I’m a pretty straight sort of guy. . . .”
“I stand behind everything I’ve said . . . ”
“. . . although I won’t restate it. . . . .”
“. . . .even if it involves a straight ‘yes’ or ‘no’ . . .”
“. . . .but then I have a wife to speak for me. . . .”
“. . . .and BOY can she speak!!!”
78. yes, Alex.
79. The Luntz focus group were shown for approx 5 minutes in a separate report at the end of the news.
Almost every single comment was very negative about Brown. For example just 3 people out of 30 saw him as a leader.
82. Luntz impact….can the impact be less big than in the Tory race because the actual vote will happen after many months and not just after a couple of months?
79. Nick P - I should have added that I agree with you - the clips of the public reacting to Brown’s speech in the main report at the start of the BBC1 news were mainly OK for Brown.
84. so we can return to the old question with this kind of focus groups: can the selection of videos showed change the outcome?
3 people saw McDonnell as a leader after the focus group…but I suppose the result can change depending on if they showed McDonnell speaking against ID cards or McDonnell saying we should honour Bobby Sands.
82. So? We’re going to let 30 people who’ve been manipulated by Cameron’s spin-doctor decide the Labour leadership? Don’t be silly.
In any case, the next election will be decided on what brown actually does when he’s PM.
Watching party conferences I often wonder if people always clap at almost everything….I’m looking at the live coverage from Manchester now and a delegate just walked on stage, she said her name and that she comes from Mitcham and Morden CLP…and the audience clapped!
Why doesn’t Brown use an autocue? Does his eyesight make it impossible?
87. ok, it wasn’t live..a delegate just said “good morning”
Of course there is manipulation, it’s human nature and this panel is no different. Firstly, Luntz would look stupid if people liked Brown against polling evidence and the potential story would be weak in any case, secondly he would like to steer labour away from anyone who is a threat to the area that Cameron is staking out and finally he would be happy to puff up someone who is less credible but who would create a potentially bruising contest (the latter two because of residual loyalties). Hence Reid comes out the winner!
Chris Bryant’s “diary” from Manchester:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labourconference2006/story/0,,1880784,00.html
I’m not sure what to think…
This Cherie Blair story sounds like such a load of c**p. Apparently she and her ‘minders’ almost “ran this Bloomberg producer down, forcing her to step out of the way” at the very moment that she said in a throwaway remark “that’s a lie”. So she was leaving the building before she made the comment and was going out of her way to listen to what was being said on the television whilst on the move.
92. Don’t tell me I got angry with Cherie for nothing!
)
(Anyway I don’t like her if she hasn’t said it
90. I’m glad you think Brown is a threat to Cameron. I agree, esp as he is determined not to move away from the centre ground.
As for the contest - I’m aware people disagree, but I think it would be a good thing if Reid stood. There has to be a proper contest, and if the two are heavy-weights, even better. And Brown needs to publically defeat his opponents. That way they come off as sore losers if they continue to whinge after the event.
92 - Being as it’s led all the major news bulletins, it doesn’t matter anymore what happened. Labour lost control of the news management and what should have been about Brown has been all about the rifts instead.
95: Yep, even if Cherie didn’t say it, I bet she’s delighted that someone thought she had.
95. It’s not so bad. The public doesn’t like Cherie, and for once they get to see that perhaps Blairites have been plotting against Brown, rather than the other way round.
90 - Very nice, but I didn’t say that. Brown is ready to be eaten for breakfast by the press and Cameron is quite capable of providing them with the cutlery. I hope that Campbell starts to make the right noises in this direction as he needs to tap into the zeutgeist on this (a little too gentlemanly at the moment).
Just to repeat what I said, unspun -
“Luntz would look stupid if people liked Brown against polling evidence and the potential story would be weak in any case.”
79. But isn’t that the point? That whether or not she said those exact words, people believe she did and the story’s run anyway. It’s not a million miles away from the way Labour got elected in 1997 when any story about the Tories would do as long as it would be believed - and back then, just about anything that came from Blair was believed. I’m afraid I can’t muster much sympathy.
Anyway, on topic. Why the movement out? Was it because we were reminded how average a speaker Brown is? If so, does it matter - set piece speeches play little part in modern politics, though they do occasionally make a difference. Was it because of the Cherie story, which emphasises that a smooth transition is unlikely?
Does Brown have only two chances in three of making it? Surely, it’s really better than that - there’s still no-one else. The longer Reid and Johnson (both older than Brown, never mind Blair) fight over who is the challenger, the more secure Gordon becomes. Unless one can make a clear break this week I really can’t see how opposition to Brown can focus; without that focus, it’s more or less GB’s by default.
94 - Would you still be “pleased” if you knew that paul felt that Simon Hughes was the best choice for the LibDems?
Just watching Gordon’s being interviewed on Channel 4 news. He looks like a broken man going through the motions.
92 - the 24hr news channels should, as usual, be ashamed of themselves. How long before one of them goes with the slogan “First with the Gossip?”
101 - he’s gone back to his “Gordon face”. He looks knackered! And someone should do something about his grey hairs
00 - In terms of who was standing he was (we’ve seen Ming’s drawbacks and Huhne is dull beyond belief). A leader needs to inspire, especially if you are a third or minor party, frankly I would have preferred Cable or Clegg to anyone standing.
“He looks like a broken man going through the motions”
Garbage!
05 -
A broken man going through the garbage?
The other reason Luntz is less relevant is that last time he essentially showed Cameron and Davis setting out their stall for the leadership - this time he showed each of the candidates talking about entirely different things - Reid being tough on law and order - Brown defending his behaviour towards Blair and the others talking about something else. I think if you have people in a campaign situation there is some (not much) validity to his methods, but when the topics are so disparate it is a nonsense. John McDonell evel with Brown? Reid getting almost every vote? Implausible.
PS I thought Brown’s speech was very average. In most of his previous speeches there have been a few memorable lines - this time he was so risk averse it was entirely dull. It wasn’t a David Davis moment but it was a bit John Major minus the traffic cones.
lol @ Alistair Campbell on Channel 4. Whatever my opinion of him I always instinctively side with anyone laying in to Nick Robinson
Alastair Campbell acting like a t*sser on C4 news at the moment. I think he’s going to punch Jon Snow before the end of the programme if he doesn’t calm down….
x00 No!! It explains why Paul and I don’t agree on much.
104. uhm, the spam filter doesn’t allow me to post a comment about Simon Hughes…..I swear I didn’t insult him!
97. talk about clutching at straws!!!
Funny his take on Robinson. Most people would hear! hear! that one!
108: Yes, they need to recapture Campbell and put him back in the laboratory - sounded absolutely demented.
79
‘the Cherie story has been denied not just by Downing Street but by her security staff who go round with her, and the agency has admitted the original report (alleging she was in the hall at the time) was wrong. It’s basically one reporter’s word against five other people, and Nick Robinson fell back on “well, even if it isn’t true, it might have been”. ‘
New Labour spin machine now in overdrive!
Why would a producer for Bloomberg TV,who said the incident happened where the TV monitors were & not in the hall, lie ?
I can understand that the other 4 minders with Cherie might not want to lose their jobs.
Andrea. I’m surprised the name alone doesn’t get taken out by the spam filter!
116. Roger, I mentioned Widdy in the same sentence..so maybe it couldn’t take both at the time
115: Mmm, wonder how long it will be before the goons at Number Ten start spinning some nasty character assassination against the journalist in question.
115 Why would a producer for Bloomberg TV lie ? Perhaps because if they hadn’t we would have continued never having heard of them .
119. Surely putting an untrue story out would damage a minor media player far more as it would skew their reputation much more than it would for a big one? Anyway, as has been said, the story’s taken on a life of its own now.
“Why would a producer for Bloomberg TV,who said the incident happened where the TV monitors were & not in the hall, lie ?”
Raise the channel’s profile? My impression of US news channels is that they are often even more attracted to gossip than British Channels, especially when commentating on non-US politics. If this had originated on Fox News it wouldn’t be taken seriously by anyone neutral. Just because Bloomberg has a solid reputation when reporting business matters, doesn’t mean it is either trustworthy or neutral when it strays outside its natural areas.
Bloomberg TV…is it a TV that usually covers economic affairs, right? Or am I confusing it with something else?
121 Oh it’s a US company , say no more .
120 - It’s completely risk free. Nobody could prove that the story is untrue, and enough people will be prepared to believe it because it fits in with preconceptions to make it worthwhile.
Yes Andrea, it’s the business channel. Quite addictive if you want to while away the hours
122. It does cover mainly economics, but sometimes a but of politics as they affect the economics. Bloomberg is owned by the current mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg (Republican)
“MBA students in US cheat more than other graduate students”.
Didn’t GWB have an MBA?
125 - Republican registered Democrat is i think more accurate, snowflake
125. Is it really? what a fount of information you are.
Quite a bit of drift, perhaps the punters thought his speech was a bit David Davies?
He has a single monotonal delivery. No change in emotion as he goes on. (From what I have heard so far)
121
Cherie has now changed her story and claims that she said ‘Can I get by’ instead of ‘That’s a lie’.
Although,her father in law didn’t seem to be convinced.
So why didn’t one of her 4 minders simply come out and say that ?
It does seem inconceivable that Cherie Blair could have uttered these words given the cordial relationship between Number 10 and Number 11. I’m sure that the great British public will find Gordon Browns kind words for the PM far more convincing.
Sounds to me like a Bloomberg led Republican party conspiracy - no doubt with Frank Luntz at it’s epicenter.
127. Yes, you are right. I think he couldn’t get the Dem nomination, so ran as republican. Weird, no?
106
‘A broken man going through the garbage?’
Are you referring to Blair or Brown?
05,
I am not a Brown fan, but thought the speech substantial.
If he doesn`t listen to all those people telling him how to change.
He should stick to the lines he is proud to be Scottish and British, proud of what he has achieved as chancellor, for this country, and debt relief around the world.
And would relish the chance to take the fight to Cameron and the Tories.
He has to say to keep saying this to the electorate, until they hear it, through the side noise.
If they believe he is doing it for service, duty, and because he realy believes it, he has a great chance, to catch the right mood, after the Blair years.
A moral man could win, over vagueness personality driven politics, at the next election.
124/25. Thanks.
129. Punters also thought Labour was going to win Dunfermline when the candidates were on stage waiting the returning officer reading the results.
How much does a speech matter, Kinnock was pretty good at speeches, didn’t do him much good. Mrs T couldn’t do the jokes in her speeches, didn’t do her much harm. Brown’s speech wasn’t bad, he didn’t flop like Davis, but he’ll never be an orator. Couldn’t understand why Davis was so fancied, his only qualification for the job, seemed to be, that he was a member of the SAS weekend brigade. Like IDS his only qualification, was his dad was a spitfire ace, what is it about Tories and uniforms? Paddy Ashdown should have been a Tory, ex Royal Marine, SBS, God that would have got the Tories drooling.
134
‘and debt relief around the world’
Any chance of Brown giving the UK ’some debt relief’?
PFI’s which our grandchildren will still be paying for,record consumer debt of £ 1.12 trillion and two thirds of the entire EU’s credit card debt?
137 The record amounts of personal consumer debt and credit card debt is something that Conservatives on here often blame on Gordon Brown . I cannot see why he or the government should be blamed for the personal decisions and actions of individuals . Perhaps Conservatives can explain what restrictions they would introduce to restrict individual personal choice .
136. Davis’ speech wasn’t that bad, it just didn’t set pulses racing. Cameron’s speech was far better and the difference showed (so was Rifkind’s for that matter, though in a different way - which proves that they only matter so far). If Reid or Johnson makes a barnstormer - unlikely, as I don’t think either have it in them - it could prompt a big shift in the odds. Not as far as Cameron/Davis as the three ministers are much more known quantities, but hefty none-the-less. It’s the contrast that matters, rather than the quality per se. As it happens, I don’t see that much difference between any of them which is why I expect the status quo to maintain until the election kicks off properly once Blair resigns.
Most interesting. Tim Bell-Maggies guru-and an advertising doyen who currently runs Bell Potinger PR. has just said that he’s always advised clients who wanted to know how to get a Knighthood or a Lordship that what you have to do is give a large amount of money to a charity or a political Party. “Though I have never had or shown anyone a rate card”
137,
Hardly the same comparision to third world debt.
And to compare the two is disingenuous.
138 - I don’t think the point is that Brown is to blame for any individual sob story of someone living beyond their means and ending up in bankruptcy. However if you accept the argument that the levels of consumer debt, as a whole, are unsustainable, then it is not just those who have spent irresponsibly who will suffer. And then of course the Chancellor could be blamed because he has it within his power to steer the population in general in certain directions with how they spend (or don’t!) their money. He can make saving more attractive when he needs to take cash out of the economy and encourage people towards making provision for bad times in the future or their pension, he can make it unnattractive when he wants people to spend to boost the economy.
Brown up a bit more at 0.45/1.
Speech hurdle passed ok. (Unlike abysmal Davis)
GB4GB
RE 43 Roger, you have to wonder if he only married Cherrie to Make Charles choice look better, but then again the former came before the latter.
And yes, Cherrie is unbeleivably politicaly naive.
Cherie has denied the story and you have to believe her. The Bloomberg girl must have misheard. Silly though of Cherie not just to sit quiet and clap at the appropriate time. Also unfortunate that she comes from such a dysfunctional family. I recently worked with a first assistant who had worked on a semi porno film with her father. The stories of the shoot though hilarious can’t unfortunately be repeated on here!
Mark Senior at 123. Was that a genuine statement or one with irony?
We’ll see how the press pick it up tomorrow in terms of the tone of their reporting of it. Then we shall see how credible it is.
The punters are getting this wrong at the moment, Brown is going to get in as things stand currently. Unless the money is very informed and substantive, and I doubt it is based on the relative size of the movement in price. It could be that some people are betting on the their belief that he’ll be a poor PM and booted out at the next election. Both probably true but actually of moderate influence at the moment when it comes to the Labour Party membership. Human error and very easily done in betting.
If he’s really under threat his price drift will be very rapid qwuite simply because some people who really know whats going on will get in and get in substantially enough to affect the market.
142 I don’t disagree with what you say but the Conservative creed seems to be built on the foundation of giving people more and more personal freedon to spend or save as they please , a philosophy that could lead to even higher levels of personal debt .
Labour are and affectionate, soppy bunch. They will vote for Brown because he is “one of us” and “deserves a go”. They will vote for him even if some right wing commentators see him as a vote loser and prefer Reid etc. Indeed this is a plus point.
I am not sure that people outside Labour truely get this.
IMO he really does deserve a stab at the job after surviving/prospering in the chancellor job for so long. If something qualifies you for a stint as PM, then this is a close as it gets.
146 Although that particular statement was somewhat ironic , the news media particularly the press in this country have never been averse to making up stories and presenting them as facts .
147 - Making saving more attractive isn’t denying people’s personal freedom to spend.
RE 91, Thanks Andrea for the link. What a fantastic end to the piece. Chris for Alan? Wow.
Bring back council houses. Nearly all that debt is for mortgages so to remove it get rid of so much home ownership perhaps to the level on the continent where renting is much more common
150 - I don’t think I said it was .
143. There’s a pretty big gap now between blue and red on Brown on Betfair: 1.46 to 1.60. Very interesting - has the money simply stopped going down to clear a space that size?
I come to this website to read the political chatting, not to do betting.
I am not interested in the betting.
The betting bits should be understandable and accessible to those of us who are not especially interested in betting.
but AAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHHH!!!!!!
You have got the graph upside-down again!!!!
And you are using opaque gobbledygook again!!!!
What does “move out” mean?
Please put the graph back the right way up again so that it looks normal and proper…. otherwise I might have to squirt some custard into your ears.
151. Benedict, I suppose he was joking somehow…in the middle of it he was asking Gordon for a job, then he ended asking it to Alan….in the end I’m not sure if I’ve understood what M and P stands for!
x55. No, the graph is the right way up. You’re not.
145. “Cherie has denied the story and you have to believe her.”
Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!
No I do *not* have to believe her!
No I do not believe her!
She is a liar!
148 - I’m not sure he really wants it. As Chancellor he has a great deal of power to change people’s lives, but also importantly he can pick and choose what issues he gets involved in. As PM he won’t have that luxury - he will have to involve himself in all sorts of areas where he probably has little interest (unless he is going to reverse the direction of Government decision making for the last 25 years and massively increase the power and influence of individual cabinet ministers). It is far easier to involve himself seriously in campaigns against third world poverty as Chancellor than as PM.
re 91. I think like his constituents he’s been drinking 24 hrs a day
145-Roger
‘Cherie has denied the story and you have to believe her’
Why?
155. Apologies for the opaque gobbledygook in my own post! “move out” - the odds get larger e.g. to go from 2/1 to 3/1.
152-Roger
‘Nearly all that debt is for mortgages so to remove it get rid of so much home ownership perhaps to the level on the continent where renting is much more common’
PFI’s debt is nothing to do with mortages and neither is the UK consumers credit card debt which is now two thirds of the entire EU’s credit card debt.
RE 135 Fair point Andrea.
“move out”, “drift”, “lengthen” - outcome becomes less likely. Opposites of “come in”, “shorten” etc
153 - yes you did. You said that attempts by the Chancellor to influence how the public use their money should be opposed by the Conservatives as a “denial of personal freedom”.
260. well, yersterday he has been spotted in a bar with Tom Watson.
Evening all.
Well, no matter whether what Cherie said was what she said, or simply what she is sayng she said, it makes no matter.
It has knocked much of the gloss and attention to content in the reporting of Brown’s (to my mind rather lacklustre) speech.
Call me a cynic, but I rather suspect that that was her intention when she didn’t say what she said, and also the reason for a 6 hour delay in then saying what she said she was saying (which was not what is is said she said).
I guess she is feeling pretty smug tonight (more so when she reads tomorrow’s papers). Brown must be spitting feathers tonight. TV coverage is much much more memorable for the Cherie stuff than for the Brown stuff.
Roll on Luntz!
148,
Labour are affectionate soppy bunch.They will vote for Brown because he is one of us and deseves a go.
How very true.
Before getting to the point of utter desperation, when they had lost all belief they could win again, on their own, and they voted for a winner Blair.
In a way its quite heart warmingly decent, if deluded, when up against a newly hard headed invegorated Cameron Conservative party.
154 David
It’s indicative of an illiquid market. The buyers and the sellers are proving inflexible and few transactions are taking place.
It suggests to me that punters are not sure what is happening.