Gordon Brown the Big Feartie 183

I do not claim any direct link between my declaration in Kirkcaldy that I was seeking nomination as a SNP Westminster candidate and fancied taking on Gordon Brown, and his subsequent decision to let the media know he intends to stand down and not fight! But it is an act of remarkable political cowardice from a man who so spectacularly promised No voters massive devolution of powers to the Scottish parliament. That Brown promise was given more publicity by the mainstream media than any other event in the entire referendum campaign. The fact that Brown never had any locus to deliver what he was promising was bound at some stage to become acutely embarrassing. He now escapes responsibility for the cynical lies of his pledges, by simply running away.

Brown was always a feartie. He was scared to stand against Tony Blair for leader, scared to call a general election early when he could have averted Labour’s electoral disaster. He was even scared to stick to his guns when for once he got something right and called that dreadful woman a bigot.

Brown contributed directly to the crippling poverty of millions by his disastrous deregulation of the City of London and years of giving the bankers everything they desired. Nor must we allow the mainstream media unchallenged to cement the lie that there was no alternative to trillions of pounds in grants and effective subsidies from taxpayers being given direct to the fatcat bankers, which have crippled the public finances for generations. Letting bad banks go bust and bad bankers go on the dole (or hopefully jump) was a far better option. Contrary to the Brown myth, world recession was not averted. It happened, massively. The only thing saved was the multi-million incomes of the people whose greed and stupidity had caused the collapse.

Brown remains the greatest friend the bankers ever had.

Brown and Darling lead a large phalanx of Labour MPs who realise their best career move is to transit to the benches of the House of Lords while the going is good, and start pocketing their 300 pounds a day allowance for doing nothing but hoovering up comfy directorships.

I fear that they will find that Scottish independence is coming sooner than they think and that gig will soon get cut short too.

As for Brown’s devolution promises, frankly I don’t give a damn about the Smith Commission. Holyrood control of income tax is meaningless if most other taxes are set in London. Fiscal autonomy can only work if Scotland is given all its taxes, including those from hydrocarbons and from whisky. That will never happen. Any tax and spend devolution which reserves oil and whisky taxes to the UK Treasury will be perverted by Westminster, to only result in further public spending cuts for Scotland. Besides, if Westminster can still send our children to fight and die in illegal wars, the money is immaterial.

Which brings us back to Gordon Brown. Remember not only did he first deregulate the bankers then give them huge transfers from poor families’ taxes, he backed Blair to the hilt over the invasion of Iraq. Without Brown’s support, Blair could not have done it, and hundreds of thousands would not have died – nor would we have ISIS and linked chaos now.

Brown is an evil man.

183 thoughts on “Gordon Brown the Big Feartie

1 3 4 5 6 7
  • nevermind

    Habby running to mummy squealing is not surprising, that is all he ever does. rather than supporting Ian Orrs letter to Ms. May, he fecklessly castigated others for not signing, what a pretentious, squitty moo.

    @ Phil You used the term stealing and then provided the article showing that a steal was never intended.

    Craig said that he would never impose himself, but that he is open for invitations from Constituencies who might want to have him. Word bender.

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    @ Node and Clark


    Be aware of Habbabkuk’s threats (4.43pm).”

    It is not a threat in the sense you probably mean. It is an intention.

    People can be and are held to account for what they say in print and in public, and rightly so. Why should this medium be different? It is legitimate, in my opinion, for the political acts of persons in the public sphere to be vilified and in general those persons accept such vilification; however, the border line is crossed when the vilification takes the form of accusing individuals of criminal behaviour.



    “Habbabkuk, Paul Barbara merely states that he believes something he read elsewhere. Why report Paul Barbara rather than the source to Gordon Brown’s office?”

    Repeating a defamatory libel is also actionable. If Gordon Brown’s lawyers decide to pursue the matter, they may decide to do so against both the original source and the repeater.

    To give an analogy : in certain countries holocaust denial is a criminal offence and the latest denier cannot wriggle out of his responsibility by saying “oh, I’m only repeating what someone else has already said.

  • Republicofscotland

    “It is not a threat in the sense you probably mean. It is an intention.”


    Who the hell do you think you are threatening a fellow commentor, I won’t be at all surprised if you’re banned for your offensive actions.

  • Clark

    Habbabkuk, do you intend to report the source to Gordon Brown’s office, or just Paul Barbara?

    Your comparison with holocaust denial is inappropriate. Repeating assertions which have already been addressed in court is not the situation in this case.

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)


    Thank you for drawing Craig’s attention to “Paul Barbara”‘s posts. I hope you will also draw his attention to mine in toto (including the one at 18h06 and this one).

    You will understand that this is in no way – repeat, no way – intended to attack Craig or his blog – I feel I have to say that before someone accuses me of just that. Therefore I don’t think he or the blog have anything to worry about; the culprit here is the poster him/herself.

    If anything, this affair shows how certain other people – nominally supporters of Craig – are doing a good job of undermining him and the blog by their total lack of intelligent self-control.

    I await reactions, including from “Paul Barbara”.

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)


    “Habbabkuk, do you intend to report the source to Gordon Brown’s office, or just Paul Barbara?”

    “Paul Barbara”‘s posts contain a reference to the source and then a link to a Mr Name Withheld and the egregious Signor Giovanni di Stefano.

    You may recall that when something similar came up a little while ago – it was about irregularities in the Scottish referendum – one of the more sane commenters on here kept asking “if you have anything substantial to go on, why don’t you go to the police”.

    I ask the same question of Mr “Paul Barbara”, who claims to be, incidentally, to “an active campaigner” against paedophilia (which if true is to his credit): have you gone to the police with your prima facie evidence or assertions?

  • Phil

    ” You used the term stealing and then provided the article showing that a steal was never intended.”

    No. I provide the quote saying he won’t parachute in over a local candidate. But of course he will. Any seat will mean sidelining a perfectly capable local candidate. Of course it won’t be called sidelining.

    This is how all the parties operate. Craig is no different to any high profile candidate getting a seat with any party. His quote was not sincere. He’ll fit in fine.

  • Reluctant Observer

    Paul Barbara – This is not a private conversation we’re having. It is a publically available, on very widely read blog.

    Surely you know that people have been jailed for making relatively trivial inflamatory remarks on Facebook, or Twitter. We are not talking about saying something silly to a few of your friends, we are talking about hugely serious allegations about extremely well known public figures.

    It concerns more than just yourself too. This could get the blog closed down, and put its host into difficulties.

    I strongly urge you – repeat, strongly – to retract your statement, make it clear you were not serious, and request that the moderators delete them.

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)


    “And on what basis do you describe Paul Barbara as ‘anonymous’? It looks like a real name to me.”

    Whoever he is, he is not the Paul Barbara you will find, prominently, in Wikipedia.

    That Paul Barbara, being an American academic (a chemist), is unlikely to have posted on a British blog and on paedophilia.

    More conclusively, he died in 2012.


  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    From Reluctant Observer (re “Paul Barbara”)

    “I strongly urge you – repeat, strongly – to retract your statement, make it clear you were not serious, and request that the moderators delete them.”


    Plus a genuine apology and an undertaking not to post similar defamatory libels in the future, please – about anyone.

    He can criticise Brown’s politics and policies as much as he likes and using more or less whatever language he likes, but NOT by accusing him of criminal acts.

  • Republicofscotland

    You’d better watch out Craig Habb and his sockpuppet Reluctant Observer will report you for calling Gordon Brown an “Evil man”

    Expect a libel letter in the post timeously.

    Of course if Theresa May has her way with her new “Counter Terrorism Bill” our IP address,and ISP will be open to all asunder.

  • Clark

    Habbabkuk, if only institutionally abused children had had someone as keen to protect them as you are to protect powerful men’s reputations.

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    From Republicofscotland

    “You’d better watch out Craig Habb and his sockpuppet Reluctant Observer will report you for calling Gordon Brown an “Evil man””

    Not at all. Please refer to the first part of my post at 18h06. Calling Gordon Brown “evil” for his political actions (I do not agree, but that’s by the by) is a moral or ethical judgement, not an assertion of criminal activity.



    A short while ago, you investigated my suggestion that Republicofscotland and “Robert Crawford” were one and the same person and pointed out, on this blog, that you had found no technical evidence that this was the case. A number of my posts were subsequently deleted.

    Please now carry out technical investigations into Republicofscotland’s claim that Reluctant Observer and I are sockpuppets and bring your findings to this thread.

    Why should the Devil have the best (and only) tune?

    Thank you in advance.

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)


    It is precisely because protecting children from the evil of paedophilia and protecting someone against accusations of paedophilia made publically without a shred of evidence or proof are two sides of the same coin.

    Can you not see that?

    I find your comment in the poorest of taste and as morally dubious as the resounding silence from the usually so vociferous regulars.

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    “Habbabkuk, our comments crossed. Investigation reveals that you have sock-puppetted, but not, apparently, as Reluctant Observer.”

    You are right: one post as “O’Neil” in jocular response to someone claiming to be an Israeli called “Oniel”, a couple of times as “Red Robbo” in tribute to Mr Goss’s evident affinity with that great revolutionary of the Birmingham motor car industry and once as the fairly obvious “Amos” (Old Testament give -away for the sake of the dimmer-witted).

    And, by the way, you could drop the “apparently”. Would you like, for the sale of balance, to use the same words you used recently when you cleared Republicofscotland and “Robert Crawford” from my suggestion that they were the same person?

    Thank you in advance.

  • ElaineS

    Reluctant Observer: I once revered Gordon Brown, I was also a staunch unionist Labour of 40 years and on off activist of Gordon. Since he returned it gave me and many others in town to see the real dirty rotten Brown at work or in our case, not working very much for his fulltime wages. Add the lies, the distortions, The fake Vow and finally standing down and leaving Scots with the crap he instigated in the form of The Vow. I loathe the man now and like Craig, I am definitely far more wiser since I took my head out of the Labour sand and stopped their conditioning to hate Alex Salmond and SNP. Funny when you step away from their constant hatred and bitching, you get the chance to see how decent Eck and SNP are. I may have been born into Labour but its the likes of Blair, Brown and these lying,betraying sods in Scottish Labour now that I am now a proud SNP member and that the party I will stand with till the day I pop my cloggs. Labour are more of an enemy to Scotland than Tories are….at least we know what comes from the Tories, Labour pretend they are the goodies but behind closed doors they plot and lie and fool the working classes of the UK into hating every party but them. Tories are just pure evil but in truth, Labour and especially Scottish Labour are the Judases of all parties.

  • Brendan

    @ HAbba

    “Shame on you, Brendan.”

    I made no accusation against Brown or Darling. Certainly not about current child abuse allegations. But the security services do seem to have ways of making politicians do things. I am not privvy to their methods, but we can guess it’s pretty ruthless. If you read something ‘sly’ and ‘cowardly’ in my post, that’s up to you, it wasn’t intended to reference current investigations though.

    As to the specific current child abuse allegations, I’ve no idea who is involved. I have read articles on the internet, which name some names, but they could well be spook misinformation. So, it my post reads like an accusation, it isn’t. Can’t say fairer than that. Anyway, I am hoping that the investigation will actually lead to some names, it should if done properly.

  • Iain Orr

    This has been a worthwhile debate about what personal accusations of criminal activity it is legitimate/ wise to make about others; and the terms in which such accusations are expressed. We are all familiar with the convention that parliamentarians can use/ abuse their privileged status to make accusations within the Palace of Westminster which might draw lawsuits if expressed outside the Westminster redoubt.

    I have sympathy with Habbabkuk’s wish for accusations to be substantiated; and also that being “evil” is not the same as being a criminal. However, I imagine that Paul Barbara and others might wish to provoke lawsuits which would be vigorously defended.

    I have taken the same approach myself when setting out here and elsewhere my accusation that Colin Roberts (a former Director Overseas Territories in the FCO) lied under oath (i.e. committed perjury) when he claimed in court that he did not use the phrase “Man Fridays” in a meeting with US Embassy London officials, as reported verbatim in a Wikileaked cable. My defence would be that I had good reason to trust US Embassy reports against the word of a UK official who had taken care that no FCO record was kept of such an important meeting. Otherwise the US Embassy might deny me a US visa because I had impugned the accuracy of their diplomats honesty in reporting meetings with UK officials.

  • Republicofscotland

    “Republicofscotland, if you have evidence of sock puppetry, post it. If not, please don’t make such accusations”

    Okay Mods I apologise for the insinuation.

  • Republicofscotland

    “Habbabkuk, our comments crossed. Investigation reveals that you have sock-puppetted, but not, apparently, as Reluctant Observer.”

    Thank you mods for exposing Habb, and his sockpuppeting, he’s endeavouring to write it off a some sort of joke, when infact its much more sinister.

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)


    I accept your assurance wrt Brown and Darling and share your hopes for the outcome of the investigations.

    Just one question (or two). You say

    “But the security services do seem to have ways of making politicians do things. I am not privvy to their methods, but we can guess it’s pretty ruthless.”

    Cab you supply some examples (which politicians, which things) which in your opinion lend weight to your belief?

  • nevermind

    Some infantile students at UEA Norwich have decided they don’t like invited UKIP candidates speaking on campus and rounding the education of students in debate and experience, so they put up a FB campaign and got over a thousand students to sign up to ‘ban UKIP’ from speaking.

    They had been invited by the political society, and weren’t it for the self aggrandising Ms Sulil and her forceful demands, these students could have made their own minds up on UKIPs far off ideas.

    Tonight UEA’s administration has pulled the event until further notice, postponed, and it stinks of PC fascism.

    I don’t like UKIP and would have loved to read an article written by these students were they comprehensively trashed the candidates policies and arguments, which I know is not very bright, instead this little Labour wannabe has provided UKIP with plenty of local and national publicity for the next three days, in a marginal constituency Labours Clive Lewis will have to win.


    “This is my comment to the story yet to appear.

    As a European who has been actively campaigning and demonstrating, age 15, against the nationalist right wingers having their cosy meetings protected by the police in Germany, but by Krishna, they had the right to speak up, even when I opposed them.
    Many people don’t believe in banning people, because it reflects badly on oneself, one’s own ability to debate and defeat the argument, life as it happens, something which seems to be totally lacking at UEA, in this crop of self aggrandising students as well as in the administration caving in to their FB demands. As a former UEA student there I feel disgusted by such undemocratic mob behaviour. How dare does Ms Sulil enforce her preferred ideas of politics on those students who might have wanted to listen and debate on what the whole political spectrum has to offer.

    I duly expect an apology from the Political society and Ms Sulil for her undemocratic ultimatum and proposal of mob violence on campus, and much much more publicity for UKIP thanks to her infantile behaviour, she has undermined Labours cause in this marginal seat by being a daft oaf.”

  • Iain Orr

    My earlier posting was poorly expressed. The final sentence should have read:

    “Otherwise the US Embassy might deny me a visa because I had impugned their diplomats’ honesty in reporting meetings with UK officials.”

    The logic of that argument is, I now realise, rather truncated. The US diplomat who drafted the cable would have had grounds for suing Colin Roberts because of the implicit accusation – in denying that he had uttered words that the US diplomat had put in quotation marks, as a verbatim account of what was said at the meeting – that he (the US diplomat) had been lying.

    Which among you believes that UK diplomats never lie under oath?
    I’ll start counting now. Oddly enough, in my own career I cannot recall ever being asked to give evidence under oath. I can recall lying (for both good and bad reasons), but never under oath. However, if my career had been at stake under oath, I am not confident that I would not have lied. That’s how convoluted diplomatic and Whitehall values are. Distrusting officials is not irrational, it’s essential.

  • Resident Dissident

    The 5% of the vote I obtained in Blackburn was the highest since 1936 for any independent parliamentary candidate, other than the sitting ex-Labour MP Dick Taverne. In other words it was the best result for any independent candidate in modern political history.

    What about the Doctor standing for Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern and Dai Davies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dai_Davies_(politician) Reg Keys against Blair, an independent racist in Rochdale who got nearly 10% of the vote – and I daresay there are others.

    Yet another negative but true comment I’m afraid.

  • Macky

    What an interesting thread indeed !

    Firstly it seems more & more people are noticing that there’s something unsettlingly odd about Mr Murray, as Reluctant Observer & Phil have been pointing out; not only does he hold some rather strange view points for a whistleblowing “Human Rights Activist” , but these also flip-flop 180 degrees depending apparently on the expedient weather.

    Then we had the regular super Craig Loyalist Nevermind, naturally minding quite a lot about these comments directed at Craig, but he shouldn’t have worried, because SuperHab was coming to the rescue, and that a double whammy of a rescue it was ! Completely shifting the focus away from Craig, but also cunningly threatening trouble both to Craig & his Blog ! Sure glad the Habbu-Clown is no “friend” of mine !

    KOWN; “ Go on, flame me! But do so in language you would use if your neighbour was watching”

    Wouldn’t dream of flaming anybody, but would draw your attention to the fact that I did you the courtesy of replying on the “Criminal” thread, but I understand that perhaps there isn’t a lot you can say when your own your criteria for those “ worthy of contempt “ actually included the person you were posting to defend !

    Craig; “In other words it was the best result for any independent candidate in modern political history”

    I wonder what that makes Galloway’s victory at Bradford West, where a 5,000 Labour majority was transformed into a 10,000 majority for Respect, being the best post-war electoral result for an any independent left of center candidate !?

1 3 4 5 6 7

Comments are closed.