I do recommend the BBC’s reporting on Gordon Brown’s statement of angst. It’s a merciful sight shorter than the Guardian’s version.
Quite why we need to be subjected to Gordon’s musings on his public persona I don’t understand. There seems to be some suggestion that Gordon deserves a right of reply against his critics. It’s as if the BBC thinks that all the British public has been viewing is the coverage of one Guido Fawkes Esq. It’s really a terrible situation. The BBC and Guardian seem to think Gordon’s had a hard press. In fact, he’s had a risibly easy one. The BBC and Guardian seem to think that the scrutiny of his personality has been too intense. In fact, Gordon has been waging personality politics and character assassination cabinet throughout his unelected tenure- unimpeded until the aforementioned Fawkes exploded a bomblet under Damian McBride.
Even the article which they are now using to promote Gordon’s version of events only draws upon Labour sympathisers as sources. Tony Wright (Labour) MP is given the final word, saying that “any PM” who had to preside over Britain through the economic crisis would be unpopular. I strongly disagree- there are many examples of crisis hit countries with popular PMs- but where is the dissenting voice against the Brownian emotional appeal? I think Gordon is extraordinarily lucky that no major media outlet is linking up the dots between the 40% of the world’s o.t.c derivatives trade that Gordon boasted was in British hands in 2006, and the economic crisis which the collapse in credit and demand has caused world-wide (helpful article here). I think the public can join up the dots, but our media has too many interests entwined with presenting the economic crisis as originating elsewhere (the USA if pressed to be specific). This applies in spades to the BBC, whose commitment to the NewLabour project has been unimpeachable since Broadcasting House was littered with empty champagne bottles in 1997.
"Labour MP Tony Wright told the BBC…"
"Hey Dad, I'm doing a piece about Gordon. Do you want to say something nice about him?"
Ed,
From what I've caught of BBC News 24 today, it's been Labour sympathisers all the way there too.
After 11.00 came the very sympathetic Brown biographer, Francis Beckett.
After 12.00 came Katharine Viner, deputy editor of the 'Guardian', who conducted this soft interview.
After 1.00 came the ubiquitous Polly Toynbee of the 'Guardian', who seems to be recanting fast on her earlier criticisms of Brown, alongside another sympathetic Brown biographer, William Keegan.
Tony Wright MP's son, Ben, keeps calling it a "candid" interview. I see it as a Mandelson/Balls-inspired PR exercise. (Aren't I a cynic?)
Interesting that the BBC have bigged up the McTwat story and downplayed the Labour sleaze.
If it had been Tories being investigated (remember the fuss the BBC made about Damien Green?) the BBC would have been all over this story.
The BBC are an utter disgrace.
Expect to see the queen of rent boys wheeled out on Sunday to spray his vile poison about.
It is clearly an attempt at dishonest political distraction, but it may backfire as it is on record now and will come to be viewed as a sign that he is over stressed and out of his depth.
Great article. Wish I'd had the wit, the wherewithal and the wisdom to write it.
State media capture, an unelected leader and a corrupt executive. It's a recipe for national calamity.
This country has never been in more danger of sliding into tyranny than it is now. Anyone who disagrees with this reality now is either swimming in a big Egyptian river – or is part of the problem.
It may, opf course, be advance notice that the writing really is on the wall, and that he has been "found wanting" by the PLP, or too large a section to be ignored. It is quite likely an early signal that he intends to stand down at or around the time of the Labour autumn conference.
denverthen @ 4:58 PM
State media capture, an unelected leader and a corrupt executive. It's a recipe for national calamity.
This country has never been in more danger of sliding into tyranny than it is now. Anyone who disagrees with this reality now is either swimming in a big Egyptian river – or is part of the problem.
Are you talking about the UK or the US?
On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care — a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!
Highlights on the agenda:
ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.
The network plans a primetime special — 'Prescription for America' — originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.
The Director of Communications at the White House Office of Health Reform is Linda Douglass, who worked as a reporter for ABC News from 1998-2006.
The BBC doesn't want you to know about that, though: hits too close to home. The other reason the BBC won't report it is that they get their opinions on US issues from places like the HuffingtonPost, which makes a false analogy to dismiss the issue. So the Beeboids think it's a non-issue. No mirrors in Broadcasting House.
Excellent post. Brown has had an easy ride all right. Few could care less about his public persona, the BBC's fawning will cut little ice with our hard-pressed society.
This weird, petulant, unelected PM has done very little to prove he is the man to lead us out of this economic pearl harbor. People judge you by the company you keep – he is still employing McBride for heaven sake.
I may be wrong but I read the BBC article as very much laying the foundations for his resignation.
The game is up and now all that remains is to salvage his dignity.That peculiar British desire to "not kick a man when he is down"
In Brown's case I would make an exception. He deserves everything he gets.
dave s,
It could just as easily be read an attempt to elicit sympathy from the reader. Presenting Mr. Brown in such a sympathetic manner takes advantage of that peculiar British desire you're talking about. They even gave him the opportunity to slip in a slight reference to his personal family tragedy.
Funny how Mr. Brown and various Friends of Gordon have for weeks been crying about the Tories trying to make it about personality and not policies. Now that they're desperate, they make it about personality. Even his biographer is rolling out the "he's listened to your concerns, he's going to continue learning, continue to work to improve…".
It's the same exact talking points over and over and over again, and no Beeboid will dare point it out.
Iran at least had an election but the supreme leader here won't tolerate a poll – even if he hates being in charge.
Is this man really the type of person we need to run a country? Someone who can come out with statements like this:
"I didn't know that. I didn't know that. It's not what I do. Anyway, I don't text. But when that behaviour was discovered: out! Gone! Away! No longer working for me. And I think if you look at the people who work in our office … it's people who've come from charities, academic life, business …"
And just to show how stuoid this man really is he says:
"You cannot have Rwanda again because information would come out far more quickly and public opinion would grow to the point where action would need to be taken. Foreign policy can no longer be the province of just a few elites."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/20/gordon-brown-interview
Never heard of Sudan Gordon?
I invite people to read this piece in The Guradian – it will open your eyes, it certainly won't make you feel sorry for him. My impression of him after reading the article is even worse than it was before – he is an imbecile.
Dave S- I wish I could share that optimistic analysis. Everything about Brown's past behaviour suggests that hell will freeze over before he voluntarily leaves the PM position. There'd be no point in going to all the trouble if he was just going to walk out- time afterwards if they're looking for sympathy.
Very good article David Vance. Ed T – I agree with you. It's just Mandelson/Balls smoke and mirrors to give the illusion Brown is a principled man who cares not a jot for the trappings of power (no – power itself is good enough for McTwat); it's yet more propaganda in the endless media campaign to keep Brown as unelected dictator. This has to be one of the vilest episodes in British political history.
Is Gordon Brown the right man to lead the Country? Well he can lead Scotland as far as I'm concerned.
But when he said "I take full responsibility and that is why the person who is responsible has been sacked"
That shows the stupidity of the Scottish fool.
Good article by Daniel Hannan in The Sunday Telegraph in which he states his opinion that Gordon Brown is being kept in power by those who act for the EU and not the UK in order to ensure passage of the Lisbon Treaty after the Irish are forced to vote 'yes'. The main player is Mandelson – he gets paid by the EU to do its bidding. Is that not treason?