« Pre-Conference survey is now live | Main | Top Blair aide Matthew Taylor identifies Brown's fundamental problem of "authenticity" »


Brown failed to deliver the definitive speech needed to win a fourth term.Hypocritically he spoke about fairness when Labour has,for 11 years, destroyed fairness.Families have been unfairly taxed and marginalised,crime has soared and private & company pension funds raided annually for £5 billion. Meanwhile,Brown awards himself, MPs and Civil/Public Servants gold plated pensions retiring at 60 whilst the rest of us work till we drop.A shallow performance using twisted logic and old sound bites.He said the same 11 years ago. Just look at the state of this country after 11 years; what have we achieved? Rather than revive his Party's chances, he has directed it towards its own requiem.

I entirely agree that it was only a speech which if it cheered the faithful did nothing for the rest of us. You are correct to note "the steep decline in household disposable income" is key. After eleven years of dubious growth, I'd love to know what real GDP per capita is.

I am sorry, but this wasn't the speech of his life. It was a rather dull and predictable speech. I am sure the PM could have done better, but he didn't yesterday. I listened to a good amount of it live and found it difficult to concentrate.

It was a formula speech. He's done better budgets, and that's a fair indictment.

A boring speech, but he could be forgiven - he nicked many of the lines!!


Should someone not be loudly pointing out the the 250 million quid for cancer sufferers has been funded by taking the money from pensioners (reducing the tax credit claim time) as the two amounts are suspiciously similar?

As far as big ideas go "fairness" is somewhat less than exciting and surely just invites his opponents to list everything that labour have done that is unfair.

I felt the attempts to personalise his speech did not come across as natural, clearly his advisors had told him he needed to do this in order to relate to voters but Gordon's heart didn't appear to be in it.

As for Sarah Brown introducing her husband, whoever thought of that idea (not sure we can buy it was her idea) has clearly been watching the American conventions.

It was a speech pretty much like all the others he has given, if labour were looking for a speech that might mark a change in their political fortunes it seems unlkely that Brown yesterday provided it.

This was not a speech to the British electorate, but a self serving speech to Labour MP's and activists imploring them to keep him until 2010.

After 2010 he will disappear into oblivion, financially secure thanks to the British taxpayer, who he will have left impoverished.

Yet more interferring by the "nanny state" and nothing positive about addressing our current, dire problems. I am not surprised.
It does not seem to have resonated with the public in any way.

We now need to come out with some clear, positive policies (starting at next week's conference) to get ourselves out of the current mess - though at this rate it will take years to redress.

We cannot afford to seen to be in any way complacent at this time.

The speech was self indulgent, an exercise in self preservation conducted through spin and misrepresentation. The man who does not use his children as props instead opted to hide behind his wife's skirt to dodge the flak heading in his direction. Hardly any coverage seems to have addressed the odd manner of Brown's delivery.

Here we are with the cost of essentials spiralling, unemployment rising and uncertainty and worry abound throughout the nation. Yet here was Gordon Brown, grinning like a lunatic, seemingly immune to the pain, out of touch and unaware of the situation people are struggling with. He acted as if we had achieved something wonderful and that under his leadership we are doing well. Greater self regard hath no man than he lay down his nation for the sake of his own skin.

This was not so much Nero fiddling while Rome burns. This was Nero getting out of the inferno's path while telling everyone else who is set to perish that he is the man to make everything right again. The sheer disconnect and delusion on display was staggering.

This speech was solely relevant to and targeted at England.

Every item on Brown's shopping list of promises is already in Scotland's cupboard.

From elderly health care, to child care to free prescriptions Brown's gift package of new hope is merely a vague promise to match Scottish public spending provision in England but without the expensive items such as free higher education.

'A Britain of fair chances for all, and fair rules applied to all.'

Gordon Brown.

Except when it is England where you have to have terminal cancer before the fairness kicks in.

'The fair society. Fairness at home. Fairness in the world - that's the new settlement for new times.'

Gordon Brown.

Except if you are English where fairness does not apply. Where equality of social welfare provision does not apply where equality of publicly funded access to higher education does not apply.

More big government, more public spending, more nanny-knows-best. This was outreach to the Labour left. Tony Woodley's gushing reaction on the Today show proves that the left have fallen for it and will put off binning Brown indefinitely, and probably let the electorate do it for them. In the meantime, the expenses, pension nest-feathering and scorched Earth will continue apace.

I hope CCHQ can get some good rebuttals in before our conference starts- we can't have the BBC spinning the inevitable bounce into the Diana-esque hysteria that took hold of th country when Brown first took over.

Ruth Kelly resigns. Hahahahaha.

So much for the speech.

As people have said, it was a self-indulgent speech designed to buy Brown a bit more time with the Labour party, though Ruth Kelly was obviously not impressed. Neither were several others to judge from the picture of Jack Straw, Darling etc on the BBC website.

An interesting job for a young researcher would be to take a central extract from the speech (e.g. about the Labour party giving working men and then women the vote, the granting of independence to the BoE etc) and to ask him/her to do a critical analysis on it, citing sources wherever Brown can be shown to have been "economical with the actuality".

We have to assess Gordon Brown's speech not from our perspective but from that of the average man on the street who is going to decide the outcome of the next GE.

What we must do next, and continue to do relentlessly, is to drive home the message to the public at large Labour’s failures, broken promises, incompetence and even deceit.

We must explain to the public why the country is in such a parlous state, how and what we are going to do to improve matters.

Were the papers watching the same speech, or do you think they pre-wrote their comments and went down the pub?

The speech was obviously to the faithful and the unions but still, I wouldn't have thought it would have got them that excited.

To say he isn't using his kids as props, is using them like props, which he does.
People are also confusing seriousness with dull, insincere and lacking in the fresh energy and ideas to lead.

Wow. British politics must be the most cynical enterprise in the whole nation. Brown needs Sarah to prop him up. Osborne needs his trust fund to prop him up.

'His big policy announcements focused heavily on education, health and social care – all issues that in Scotland are under the control of the SNP government.

In England, this will result in scrapping prescription charges for cancer patients from next April, free health check-ups for the over-40s, catch-up tuition for pupils struggling as they enter secondary school and moves to allow older people to remain in their homes for longer.

In Scotland, the SNP cut prescription charges for all patients in April and pledged to remove all charges by 2011. The country has also piloted free nursery care for two-year-olds.

Angus Robertson, the SNP's Westminster leader, said Mr Brown mentioned Scotland only once, adding: "Where Brown did make policy commitments, he was playing catch-up with the SNP in Scotland on carbon emissions, free prescriptions and GP surgeries."

The Scotsman
Published Date: 24 September 2008
By Ross Lydall

'Anyone in Glenrothes watching Gordon Brown's big speech yesterday might have been excused for wondering what it had to do with them. Granted there were touches of the well-worn pulpit-thumping Brown style familiar to all Scots, but equally there were large swaths of the speech, on crime and health policy for example, which, because of devolution, had absolutely no relevance to the good citizens of the Fife town or anywhere else north of the Border.

Free universal check-ups for the over-40s? Extension of nursery places? No prescription charges for cancer patients? A commissioner for victims of crime? More children connected to the internet? All England and Wales only, I'm afraid.'

Times. September 23, 2008
Brown has forgotten his Scottish roots Angus Macleod, Scottish Political Editor

What is it with Politicians and their perceived need to include the spouse at Conferences etc. (never mind their Children - agree with Brown there!)?

Do industry's Captains take their spouses to the A.G.M.? Rhetorical.

It's not as if even the most 'gushy' electorate is not going to see through this. Let's face it, if they are a spouse beater, they're not going to do it in view of the public are they? Rhetorical (sic).

I don't wish to see Mrs. Cameron next week, or any other spouse or partner, thank you.

It'll be the first statement of substance and 'business as usual' over showmanship and political foppishness.

Apart from that, agree with other contributors - especially the comment about a 'self serving speech' to implore the second chance.

Brown's speech was about as statesmanlike (and substantial) as Oliver Twist asking for more - with the same sentiment really.

Come to think of it, that's an insult to Dickens' eponymous character.

Andrew Carr


Could you please stop saying "UK Plc." We are not a corporation, we are a nation state. Corporations should not be allowed to dominate the interests of people; in fact the main point of the state is to prevent unfettered capitalism destroying peoples' lives, while helping people to trade. It's a very poor analogy. It's not even the best business analogy - a building society, partnership or cooperative would at least suggest that the people who are part of the "business" gain from it.

I don't know if you actually read the Mail, but most of it was against the speech, calling him a hypocrite. As for the rest, could it perhaps be that you are wrong, and the reason it was well received is because it was a good speech?

CRIME: "People feel that their communities are changing before their eyes" yet violent crime has doubled since 1997.

DEFENCE: "Our country is full of heros" yet 60 of them were killed because they didn't have the right equipment.

EDUCATION: "We will never tolerate low standards" yet twenty per cent of pupils leave primary school without basic skills.

FINANCE: "We believe in transparency" yet next year will have £110 billion debt.

HEALTH "We will double the number of matrons" yet 10 people a day still die from MRSA.

NORTHERN ROCK: "Our Government saved Northern Rock" get it is the tax payer who foots the bill.

PENSIONS "We are committed to linking pensions to earnings" yet 2.8 million of them live in poverty.

PRESCRIPTIONS: "For those battling cancer from next year you will not have to pay prescription charges" yet whilst charges rose to £7.10 in England last April from 2011 they will be free in Scotland.

WELFARE: "Everyone who can work must work" yet 800,000 people live in a household wher nobody works.

The speech was great news for us. Labour plotters have been put off striking, and we've got plenty of misquotes and snidey asides to attack at our Conference. Last thing we needed was Brown totally bombing and putting us in unknown terrority for the next few months.

Why was there a 'dirty tricks' campaign by Con HQ to allege Ruth Kelly had rubbished the PM's speech. I think the public have a right to know!!

It was as Kenny Everett would have said “A sincere speech from the heart of his bottom.” Gordon Brown, situation normal.


Nothing Brown says will make any difference. The public have made up their mind and switched off. His mere appearence bores the pants off people. We are now back in 1995. Labour are making the same plaintiff cries as we did about 'needing to communicate our message better'. Times up and that's it.

From the moment Sarah Brown stepped up to the lectern the hands of that charming, noble, exceptionally honest, popular,awful man, Alistair Cambell's hands were, to me, as visible as an old fashioned puppeteers strings.
The blogosphere were almost unanimous in their condemnation and caused the BBC HYS blog to be purged! See Guido!


Please continue to refer to UK plc if only because passing leftie wants you not to. He clearly does not understand what a nation state is or what its primary responsibility is.

'Ruth Kelly resigns. Hahahahaha.'

She obviously took the line that it was 'no time for novices' literally. Is she off to join a convent ?

'PM gets personal'.

I, for one, could not care less. I'm not interested in Brown's wife, family or childhood. His habits and past-times are of no concern to me. What does concern me is the way in which he is leading this country. It is often said that a nation 'gets the leader they deserve', but we didn't elect him; and we do not deserve him.

A just man, Plato wrote, is one who acts entirely according to his means and fulfills the function for which he is designed. Mr Brown is not designed to be a leader, that much is clear; nor does he permit other men (or women) to perform the functions for which they have been designed because he, like Blair, finds it necessary to interfere in, to legislate and to regulate every single manifestation of human behaviour. This is clearly not 'fair'; nor is promising yet another increase in public spending, at a time when Britain is struggling under a crippling burden of debt and pensioners and benefit claimants alike realistically face the prospect of starving, if this is a particularly cold winter.

Brown wants to convince us that Labour have done a good job over the past 11 years and (?) 9 months. What good has realistically been achieved, however? A shocking number of our 11 year olds can't read. Ghettoization has peaked. We are more prepared to engage with unknown enemies in illegal wars far away than with the urban youth at home. It is a criminal offence to use certain modes of expression. We are the most surveilled nation in Western Europe. We have the lowest level of child happiness and the highest level of abortion. Because of the boom-bust economy that Brown said he'd put an end to, we're all broke. The Government now wants to put trackers in our cars, as if we're not spied on enough already. Oh, and we're paying off Northern Rock's private debt with public money. The list goes on.

What terrifies me, though, is the way in which the media - supposedly intelligent, articulate individuals, tho' the jury's out on Polly Toynbee - is paying enthusiastic lip-service to such a conventional, desultory, tired load of drivel. Why so? What do they stand to gain? And what effect will this have on our ratings?

The public is given so much disinformation that it does not seem to know what to think any more, Blair/Brown having made sure that thinking for oneself is unnecessary when they can do it for us; and so I just hope that Cameron's speech is an unqualified, rousing triumph that literally blows Labour out of the water. However, tho' Mr Cameron is an eloquent orator, I fear that his speech will not receive the same sycophantic coverage, because he will not be able to outline the way in which the Conservative party will remedy the country's ills, lest Labour steals his ideas - again.

Brown's speech was GOOD NEWS for us, because we have got him, and Labour, exactly where we want them. Brown 'over performed' only because expectations of him are now so low. He remains woefully one paced and disigenuous, something that his 'useful idiots' in the Tory press [step forward Peter Oborne and Paul Dacre], still seem willing to overlook.

Fact: Brown cannot beat Cameron.

All in all then, a good week for us.

What short memories our media have.

Roughly a year ago, David Cameron made a speech under pressure to the Conservative Conference. That was a speech to praise. Brown’s, yesterday, in comparison was an unremarkable damp squib. Like his leadership, it deserves no credit.

You are right, Tim, the highlight was the kiss (although, as Andrew Neill commented, shaking her hand at the end sort of blew that PR trick).

Brown appears to be in total denial about the grave crisis we face. It's not yet a meltdown but it soon will be unless he cuts borrowing sharply. He seems to think he just needs to discipline a few 'wide boys' in the City, whereas the real problem is his own completely out-of-control borrowing.

The more the government borrows, the less room the Bank of England has to cut interest rates. Alistair Darling knows this only too well. As he himself has admitted, there is no easy way out of this slump. Bit he appears to believe he can borrow more without raising taxes.

He is being disingenuous. Government borrowing is always deferred taxation. By borrowing more today he will instead leave future generations to pay the bill.

Foreign investors have been pulling their money out of Britain at a terrifying rate because the government will borrow more to get through this crisis. If the exodus accelerates Mr Darling faces the unpalatable choice of either raising taxes or truly debauching the pound.

For Brown to claim that he 'repaired the roof while the sun was shining' is a cynical lie. He increased borrowing to spend recklessly. Now we've got to pay.

As someone said today, Brown is 50% right. He promised to abolish 'Boom and Bust'. Well he's certainly abolished Boom!

There's no sign yet that the Tory Party is alert to what's happening or that they are prepared to act. For make no mistake about it, they'll be forced to act to clear up this terrible mess.

"I want to talk with you today about who I am, what I believe...
Gordon Brown, 23 Sept 08

It feels a bit late for our Prime Minister to be telling us who he is and what he believes. To quote The Wedding Singer, these are things that could've been brought to my attention YESTERDAY!

Just for a bit of fun, type "Gordon Brown Is" into Google.com and wait for the list of suggested results.

I think that gives a good perspective on what people think of him! :-)

As has been observed, the question is what will the man in the stret think. I suspect a bounce. However, it comes down to what the Tory party conference make of it. One reason we have a Labour government, indeed a Labour party, is that the Conservatives are so slow at responding to childish promises about spending taxpayers money and, above all, rewriting history. There was a lot of the latter yesterday.

So. What did we get from Brown? The usual pledges on government spending, crime and education; when he sees a problem the natural reaction is to throw taxpayers' money at it.

We were told he understands the problems working families have with rising fuel charges and transport costs. This on the day that Labour has handed control of Britain's nuclear industry to the French and follows the recent sale of the only UK company with nuclear engineering expertise - Westinghouse - to the Japanese.

I know that Labour possesses the business acumen of a whelk but can they not connect the recent rising energy prices with the fact that the French and German goverments ensure that their utilities moderate their price increase for domestic customers but are free to maximise profits elsewhere (the UK)?

Instead of an energy policy built around coal and nuclear energy this shower of incompetents are wasting billions on so-called renewables whilst presiding over the destruction of strategic assets and the associated skills developed over the past 50 years.

More worrying, perhaps, is the deathly silence from the Tories on how they would tackle the forthcoming energy deficit.

Why doesn't everyone come clean? The reason why Gordon Brown is safe is that no one wants his job. The reason why senior members of the Labour Party won't stand for election is that if they become leader in Gordon Brown's place and can't win the next election their political career is over and with the prospects of the Labour Party being re-formed enough to win the next election are virtually non-existent it looks likely that the Labour Party will lose the next election disastrously. No one is going to commit political suicide while Gordon Brown is volunteering. So it is up to Gordon Brown to smile bravely as his ship goes down or hope that he can stealthily change his party's image for the better or that David Cameron makes a gaffe and delivers the next election to him.

Since the broadcast media were praising the speech to the skies but not showing any excerpts, I turned to BBC Parliament to bask in the glory of Gordon's oratory...

It was incredibly lame. I've never seen quite such an obvious disconnect between the media narrative and what actually happened. They've obviously decided to keep him in power, for now.

The Vol Abroad (my wife) discusses it here:

I can't believe that the press didn't pick up Sarah Brown's patronising goof-up when she introduced Gordon as, "My husband and YOUR Prime Minister," compared with Hillary Clinton's, "My husband and OUR President."

I agree that speeches make little difference.

Our "bounce" last year did not come from either Osborne's tax announcements or Cameron's platform oration - fine though it was. It came, because two weeks before, the queues started to form outside Northern Rock branches and the full horror of that unfurled over that two weeks.

Brown's conference tried to ignore it, so the public felt cheated, ours recognised it and we said a few things which tuned as being on people's side, rather than interested only in our own, internal issues.

We must do the same again before the BBC and others allow Brown to be annointed all over again - (sorry, that sounds like something that should be on Guido :-)

I only wish that the range of comments above could be seen and heard by those who do not subscribe to this website. The penetrating analysis and dissection of Brown`s lamentable and disingenuous performance deserve to be more widely heard. It looks as if the media have sold this particular pass and they deserve no credit on that account.
Well done, my friends! Keep it up

Why does Labour get such an easy ride with the BBC and much of the media? Brown’s lamentable and disingenuous performance yesterday did not fool anybody and deserves to be more widely exposed. They keep letting that Blears woman get away with distorted comments on the Conservative party who handed over to Labour a wonderful economy after sorting out the last mess that Labour left in 1979
If the general public had somebody like Lindsay Jenkins or Fraser Nelson exposing this incompetent Government it would bring some credibility back to the BBC, even Andrew Neil gives an easy ride to these incompetent people they call Labour Ministers. . Prior to being an Author Lindsay worked for the M.O.D and many years in the City.
I have never ever seen anybody ever get the better of this talented lady in political debate and she certainly knows how to go for the jugular.

The following points have hurt the nation’s economy, hurt the taxpayer and prevented them from having the chance of a referendum on our sovereignty all due too New Labour. It should be repeated at every opportunity to the media and if anybody can add to the list please feel free.
In interviews over the weekend with various Labour Ministers a question was asked time and time again how many things have New Labour got wrong ?the answer was always the same the eradication of the 10% tax level only.

Raid on pensions
Selling of gold reserves at lowest price and announcing it before selling which forced the price down.
Introduction of HIP’S which put the cost of £500 to every seller and has no interest to mortgage companies.
10% tax level eradicated and new route to compensate with tax credits which will cost a fortune on administration costs.
No referendum on treaty
Not being competitive with company tax which is forcing companies to re locate to other countries
Student fees on education
Highest debt level in Europe
Council tax quadrupled in some areas since 1997
Full rates charged since April on commercial empty buildings.
Very large contribution for all London Boroughs on rates for Olympics
New car tax on old cars which will cost an extra £200 to poorer families
Tax on dividends on Isa’s and Peps introduced
Very high tax on petrol highest in Europe
No change on threshold levels on stamp duty although house prices have become nearly out of reach of first time buyers
Inheritance tax bands have hardly been increased despite massive increases on house prices over eleven years.
Most complicated tax scheme in Europe.
Congestion charges on a very wide band in London with hardly any difference to traffic jams
Small businesses badly affected by congestion charges on borders of entry.
Closure of post offices
To much red tape for businesses of all sizes
Incompetence with private personal data across government departments
Erosion of civil liberties
How many Government and non Government Agencies have been given access to private data and allowed to tap phones?

CLAIM “Whilst a year ago only one in 10 patients had access to GPs at weekends and in the evening, now almost half of all practices are open and by the end of next year the majority will be open even longer.’’ REALITY Until Labour tore up the GPs’ contract we always had access to a GP at the evenings and weekends. But four years ago, that was changed and Labour allowed GPs to opt out of weekend/evening work – while at the same picking up more pay.
GPs’ pay has soared almost 60 per cent since 2004 to an average £111,000. But now they could get even more just for taking back responsibility for out-of-hours care.
CLAIM “For those in our nation battling cancer, from next year you will not pay prescription charges ... and as the NHS generates cash savings in its drugs budget we will plough savings back into abolishing charges for all patients with longterm conditions.’’ REALITY In April, prescription charges rose by 25p to £7.10 in England. In Scotland they fell 25 per cent, from £6.85 to £5 and will be free by 2011.
Wales scrapped charges last year. Scots already have access to free eye care and dental checks, free personal care for the elderly, extra central heating grants and a number of drugs deemed “too costly” for the NHS in England and Wales.
Gravely ill people have been forced to take court action to get access to life-saving drugs. Mr Brown made no reference to these.
CLAIM ‘’Our Labour Government saved Northern Rock so not a single UK depositor lost out...We are the party protecting home owners’ rights.’’ REALITY The taxpayer could lose between £450million and £1.28billion from nationalisation of the bank, an adviser has warned the Treasury.
CLAIM “When we talk about three million more people in work since 1997 - that’s not just a number, that’s a life that’s been changed - three million times over. REALITY Of the 2.7 million or so jobs created over the past decade, up to 1.5 million are low-skilled posts that have gone to immigrants. Between 700,000 and 1 million are public sector jobs - paid for by the rest of us.
CLAIM “Transparency – all transactions need to be transparent and not hidden.” REALITY More than £110bn of debt has been kept off the national balance sheet, but taxpayers will have to pick up the bill.

Passing leftie: I use the term UK plc to cover the economic part of our nation. I don't mean it to be a substitute for everything else Britain stands for.

Mark Fulford

The media was very kind to David Cameron when he made his leadership conference speech.

Why should the media be kind to a man that has ruined Britain and brought into the country 1,500,000 low paid migrants when we had many of our own Britain’s sitting on the dole

Why is all we have to offer on the economy, someone who has never had a real job and lives off a multi-million pound trust fund?

Dominic tell me how did Brown bring in 1.5 million migrants into the country himself ? Most of these so called migrants work very hard and contribute to the economy in a big way.

If they all left our companies, hotels ,farms, health service etc would grind to a halt. There are around half a million vacancies in the uk at present waiting to be filled.

the problem is many uk citizens will not take on these jobs.
I recently saw a documentary about the BMP and polish workers and their employment on farms picking fruit etc.

They then filmed in the nearest town outside a jobcentre talking to young British born workers who claimed that they could not get a job because of all the migrant workers taking their jobs.

The journalist advised them that these migrants were working on local farms helping to bring in the harvest and told them that there were jobs available .

They all refused saying that they would not do this kind of work as they couldn't be bothered to do such a boring job and they would be better off on the dole.

Dominic your statement is based on hearsay , Daily Express scaremongering and silly gossip. Get your facts right !

Bill, if you are saying that Brown's speech rivalled Cameron's from last year then your judgement is suspect.

Refresh your memory here.

I don't understand why suddenly The Mail and the other media have come out so strongly in favour of this pedestrian, rather lumpen speech! What have the editors been promised by ZANULab? I think there is more to this than meets the eye....

I don't understand why suddenly The Mail and the other media have come out so strongly in favour of this pedestrian, rather lumpen speech! What have the editors been promised by ZANULab? I think there is more to this than meets the eye....

Posted by: Sally Roberts | September 24, 2008 at 14:43

They haven't! Surely you of all people read the Mail!

Paul Dacre is a friend of Brown's Sally. Although the Mail are hard on Labour they tend to go soft on Brown himself.
Peter Oborne is weird! He can write very well (his Triumph of the Political Class is superb) but then he comes out with an article like todays where one questions either his sanity or his sobriety when he wrote it.

They all refused saying that they would not do this kind of work as they couldn't be bothered to do such a boring job and they would be better off on the dole.

...and there answers your question.

They are given too much on benefits that they won't do the job hence leaving vacancies for the immigrants to come in and do them.
There's no encouragement for them to do well in school in case they end up having to pick fruit as they know it won't ever get to that as they can do nothing and get paid more for it.

If that was the speech of his life then he really has had a pretty miserable life.

Norm Brainer [at 15:53]

When I refused to issue sick notes to malingerers, they just move on elsewhere looking for someone else who will be duped by a sob story. Of course, there are income implications...

Sally Roberts at 14:43 - "I don't understand why suddenly The Mail and the other media have come out so strongly in favour of this pedestrian, rather lumpen speech!"

You obviously haven't read them! - - -
==G Brown convinces his party but not the country
==conference speech won Labour over, yet they're doomed if he stays (both Telegraph)
==Labour needs a wand to make Gordon Brown disappear (Times)
==It was almost as if he were writing off a decade of Labour government (Sun)
==Mr Brown’s problem is that whereas his reputation was built on economic competence and the ability to deliver crowd-pleasing policies in the good times, the treasury is now empty and his record is being revalued negatively (FT)
==How Brown blew his big chance (Independent)
==Brown's 'fairer Britain': What a joke - - -...
Gordon Brown was last night accused of attempting to pull off his grossest deceit yet (Express)

"Paul Dacre is a friend of Brown's Sally. Although the Mail are hard on Labour they tend to go soft on Brown himself."

Thanks for clarifying that, Malcolm! and Yes Passing Leftie, I do read it as well as the Times and occasionally even the Guardian!

Thank you Christina - I stand corrected and vastly reassured!!

"The Westminster village loves speeches and slogans and reshuffles but the most stubborn fact in British politics is the steep decline in household disposable income."

So true. Most of the Westminster Village's obsessions are irrelevant.

No Mark, I mean the one he made that all the media luvvies liked before he was elected leader.

Looks like Gordon Brown is going to end the way Major did, through death by a thousand cuts. Im guessing the HFEB had something to do with this...

As for Browns speech, a lot of those statistics have already been proven to be at best inaccurate, at worst fraudulent. His constant talking about fairness after the 10p farce proves he knows nothing about it.

The comparisons between this speech and Camerons are fair. Both were rubbish. I still fail to understand how the IHT announcement turned round Tory poll ratings. Perhaps it was more a case of Labour indecisiveness that caused the change? Camerons speech was memorable for one thing only, that it was from memory (still scripted of course). Churchillian rhetoric went a very long time ago.

I've heard a key phrase in Daves speech is going to be the triunph of capitalism....oops sorry that was last weeks draft, time for another!! lol


Long before the last general election when leadership aspirations can only have been a twinkle in Dave's eye I received a copy of one of his speeches from his secretary and read it. I have not made the same mistake again.

Gemzond please refer to Sir Andrew Green’s Migrationwatch who stated that 2.3 M came into the UK up to 2006 and only 8% from the new East European members of the EU. Sir Andrew said ‘The reality is that those who come and stay are almost entirely from countries subject to immigration control. What we need therefore is effective control. Unfortunately, the government’s much vaunted Points Based System is entirely open ended and simply fails to address the deep public concern on this issue.’
Sir Andrew said the net benefit to Britain was negligible.
Was immigration the only area where you could defend your great leader Mr Brown? What about all the other twenty six points or do you concede he has ruined Britain after taking over a wonderful economy?
Just like in 1979 the Conservative Party
will inherit a massive mess with large debt which will take years to sort out.

Because a Labour Party headed by Gordon Brown is doomed to lose the next general election.

A Labour Party headed by someone else may or may not win.

Lots of claims such as how Labour gave women the vote, quite a while ago and only ever so slightly correct. Women were first enfranchised under Lloyd George. The age at which they could vote was reduced to 21 in 1928 under Baldwin. Neither were Labour PMs. All one can say is that they did agitate for votes for women before WWI.

In 1997 10 out of 10 people had evening access to their GPs and on Saturday morning. Labour changed that for the worse.

Lastly, independence for the BofE. Looking back again who was it that nationalised the Bank in 1945?

That is just three Brownies - he utters one virtually every time he speaks.

I think part of the reason some people seem to think the speech was good was that expectations of Brown were absolutely terrible. It was also clear some very crafty preperation went into it based on focus group research which its pretty obvious was telling them to try and soften his style. I've long said that Brown is an even bigger advocate of spin than Blair.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker