"Apologise ?, Get Real"- Quote from Brown at 30,000 feet.

ad9898_3

It seems our great leader had a 'bad hair day' on the way to see Obama last week. He still seems to take absolutely zero responsibility for our current plight.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1160311/Apologise-recession-Browns-credit-crunch-tantrum-30-000ft.html

The full depth of Gordon Brown’s anger over suggestions that he should apologise for the recession was laid bare in extraordinary scenes on the Prime Minister’s plane last week, 30,000 feet over the Atlantic.
In recent weeks, Mr Brown has been under growing pressure from fellow Ministers, including Peter Mandelson, Alistair Darling and Ed Balls, who fear his refusal to say sorry could hinder the Government’s chances of winning public support for his economic recovery plan.
All three have urged him in fierce behind-the-scenes talks to admit that the Government – and Mr Brown himself, as Chancellor for ten years – have made mistakes.
But Mr Brown has vehemently resisted the moves – and his anger boiled over in a series of outbursts during his trip to see US President Barack Obama.
The Prime Minister stormed: ‘You want me to go on television and apologise, but I am not going to do it.
'I have nothing to apologise for. It is not my fault. Get in the real world.’

May I suggest that the Premier take some of his own advice ?

Dan:_4

This does not surpise me.

You would think the Labour party would oust this geezer in order to stand a slight chance in the elections next year.

1echidna

It doesn't surprise me either. Mind you the guy doesn't have the verbal agility of say Blair or Mandelson, and it would effectively be the equivalent of a suicide note, given the opportunities it would give the press and opposition. Blair would be able to deflect the attacks which would follow like water of a duck's back, but not Brown, he just doesn't have the style relying as he does on preprepared soundbites.

ad9898_3

1echidna wrote: »

It doesn't surprise me either. Mind you the guy doesn't have the verbal agility of say Blair or Mandelson, and it would effectively be the equivalent of a suicide note, given the opportunities it would give the press and opposition. Blair would be able to deflect the attacks which would follow like water of a duck's back, but not Brown, he just doesn't have the style relying as he does on preprepared soundbites.

Spot on, I feel there maybe a challenge later this year, the party must know that if they go in with Brown they are going to be massacred.

mewbie_2

ad9898 wrote: »

Spot on, I feel there maybe a challenge later this year, the party must know that if they go in with Brown they are going to be massacred.

The politics maybe that they know they are out anyway. So why sacrifice a new leader at this stage in the game, it would be political suicide. Let Brown carry the can, get rid after the election, and spend ten years building up Milliband / whoever.

wigglebeena

It's like a small boy knocking over a vase in his auntie's front room. 'Who, me? Wasn't me. Must have been the cat (that you don't have). Or Mr Nobody'.

'Light touch' regulation, anyone?

If he wasn't responsible - in the UK, not globally - then who was? Like I say there are two choices when you're IN CHARGE: either you're responsible for the outcomes of your actions, or you're so ineffectual and incompetent that you were powerless to influence events and nothing you did, or could have done, did or would have made a difference.

In which case, what were you doing in charge and why should you be retained?

mewbie_2

Ten years as Chancellor, before being eased into PM with a nod and a wink. Said "no more boom and bust" and then sat thinking up ever more fiddly ways to rip us off through stealth taxes (pensions, NI, etc.) while the biggest boom in history founded on dodgy credit took place.

I'm not sure where 'Prudence' fitted into all this.

vivatifosi

There was an interesting article in yesterday's Telegraph by Peter Hain, who warned about the city in the Telegraph in Feb 07. He states:

"One of the lessons I would draw is that whereas Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were quite right to say to the Labour Party 'your historic business scepticism has got to go', in re-positioning Labour to be both pro business and pro justice, I think there was almost an inferiority complex about criticising and exposing where there was something going seriously wrong and a reluctance to be depicted, as indeed I was, as Old Labour."

"Because of that repositioning issue clearly we didn't, in retrospect, look at the way the financial system was operating with a significantly steely detached view."

Now who was responsible for the financial system of the country at that time, remind me?
Full article (worth reading) here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/4953738/Peter-Hain-warns-that-more-New-Labour-will-lose-the-Government-the-next-election.html

Graham_Devon

I think we should definately stick with Brown.

1. He's doing some nice damage to the labour party.

2. Just imagine the next leader. Ed balls, Harriet Harman or Jacqui Smith!?!? It would be enough to drive people to jump off cliffs like lemmings!

Wookster

ad9898 wrote: »

Spot on, I feel there maybe a challenge later this year, the party must know that if they go in with Brown they are going to be massacred.

But who would you tip to take over?

David Milliband? He's just as bad - the contempt and arrogance with which he speaks is truly astonishing.

I don't think there is anyone in the Labour party who is financially/ economically literate.

wigglebeena

Wookster wrote: »

But who would you tip to take over?

David Milliband? He's just as bad - the contempt and arrogance with which he speaks is truly astonishing.

I don't think there is anyone in the Labour party who is financially/ economically literate.

I still want to know why he was so desperate for information on torture and rendition not to be released. That was Milliband, right?