Brown accused of ruthlessness

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by The_Swede, Mar 20, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6469293.stm

    I have to say that I don't really have a problem with this. I'm no fan of Mr Tax-and-Spend by any means, but he is the elected official, whereas the Civil Servants are there to serve the politicians, who in turn serve us :frustrated: . Thatcher did her own thing (eg ending the GLC - the first her Cabinet heard about it was when she announced it in Parliament), as did Blair (eg announcing levels of health spending without even consulting - ironically - Brown) etc. It sounds like a bit of whingeing from a long-term Civil Servant who didn't like it when he couldn't have his own way.

    "Yes, Minister" anyone?
     
  2. Morning Sven.
     
  3. Of course he treats his Cabinet colleagues with contempt! Who doesn't? As my Granny used to say, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime".

    I suspect his "very cynical view of mankind and his colleagues" is the natural product of a life spent mixing with politicians and journalists.

    In other news, bears accused of poor sanitary practice...
     
  4. This couls of course be Lord Turnbull's way of warning the country of what they are about to receive. As a man naturally given to manners and understatement this is a very concerning article. Let us just hope not prophetic.
     
  5. ?
     
  6. I'm sorry, but your attempt to defend the current corrupt regime led me to believe you were someone else.

    Hard to believe that there are two people on Arrse who would defend the indefensible.
     
  7. Oh no, don't get me wrong, check my posts on other threads, I'm as anti-BLiar and Brown as the next Arrser, but from an objective point of view you have to ask why do unelected Civil Servants think they should have a greater say in things than elected politicians? As I posted, Thatcher was the same. There's nothing really wrong with strong leadership. It's leadership not likership after all! It struck me as Sir Humphrey having a tiff because he's not being able to control James Hacker.

    I'll confess to possibly being a little harsh on the Civil Service here.

    There's only one unelected official in the government that I'm loyal to.
     
  8. Sven changed his name to 'Swede' has he?

    Sven is Scandinavian is it not and Sweden is in Scandinavia.

    Whatever, everyone, even old Sven, is entitled to a view and most of us on here have spent our adult lives helping to make sure that freedom to have a view and express it continued to exist - unlike the Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist dictators we were opposed to.

    Brown is an incompetent nincompoop and God help us when he is 'annointed' Leader.
     
  9. FT article below. Brown has a lot to answer for. The concept of this dreadful, destructive man being anoited Prime Minister makes me want to puke.

    Ex-Whitehall chief slams ‘Stalinist’ Brown

    Gordon Brown has exhibited a “Stalinist ruthlessness” in government, belittling his cabinet colleagues whom the Treasury treats with “more or less complete contempt”, according to the man who was Britain’s top civil servant until two years ago.

    In an interview with the Financial Times, Lord Turnbull, permanent secretary to the Treasury for four years under Mr Brown before becoming cabinet secretary in 2002, accused the prime minister-in-waiting of a “very cynical view of mankind and his colleagues”.

    “He cannot allow them any serious discussion about priorities. His view is that it is just not worth it and ‘they will get what I decide’. And that is a very insulting process,” Lord Turnbull said.

    “Do those ends justify the means? It has enhanced Treasury control, but at the expense of any government cohesion and any assessment of strategy. You can choose whether you are impressed or depressed by that, but you cannot help admire the sheer Stalinist ruthlessness of it all.”

    Lord Turnbull praised achievements including the independence of the Bank of England, the three-year spending round, much of the fiscal framework and targets for departments, which had been “a net strong plus” and “quite a revolutionary step”.

    But Lord Turnbull noted that Bank of England independence would have suited Mr Brown by allowing him to disavow responsibility for interest rate rises. “The chancellor has a Macavity quality. He is not there when there is dirty work to be done.”

    The former cabinet secretary, now an adviser to Booz, Allen Hamilton, also questioned the Treasury’s use of “celebrity reviews” into policy issues such as those involving Paul Myners, Derek Wanless and Sandy Leitch.

    “This has been an unworthy development in the sense that it belittles other ministers. The surprising thing about the Treasury is the more or less complete contempt with which other colleagues are held.

    “So if you want something done about planning, or about the environment, you don’t talk to Ruth Kelly or David Miliband and say ‘we really must do something about this’. Instead you summon up Kate Barker, or you get Andrew Gowers in to do intellectual property, rather than talk to the DTI.”

    In some areas, Lord Turnbull said, the Treasury had become itself the policymaker and guardian over a set of policies such as tax credits. The chancellor, he said, had kept control of those budgets “entirely to himself”.

    “That has been impressive, but in a sense reprehensible. There has been an absolute ruthlessness with which Gordon has played the denial of information as an instrument of power.”

    Departments learned only just before Budgets “this is what you are getting and here are your public service agreements


    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/db4b60b8-d65c-11db-99b7-000b5df10621.html
     
  10. I have already stated that I am not a fan of any of the current 'Grown-ups', but I get the feeling that the Winds of Change are coming this way like a tornado. I agree that there are a lot of non-elected (and some elected) people who know that the prosperity they have enjoyed over the TB reign of indecision is going to end.

    Can a man vote for the 'least-worst'?
     
  11.  
  12. Read and think about my whole post here before accusing me of being pro-Brown.

    He's not incompetent. He's phenomenally intelligent. It is his vast intellect that makes him a poor manager of people; no-one likes micro-management from above. Nonetheless, I would rather have an elected dictator than an unelected one (unless, of course, it was HM :thumright: ). His policies and views do not tally with mine by any stretch and thus I will not be supporting him as "leader". I see him as a man who is taking more and more of my hard-earned and giving it to less and less deserving people. I don't really care about his management style.
     
  13. In line with current govt policy...
     
  14. You are quite right 'Sven', I should have said:

    Brown is a narrow-minded incompetent nincompoop.

    Careless of me.
     
  15. He's not intelligent, he like all politicians has a certain low animal cunning. Look at the state of our country, Browns incompetence is equal to Blairs on this one... after all he held the purse strings.

    Look at the wasted billions under Browns watch.

    look at the non jobs created for his supporters.

    look at the patronage.

    Look at the corruption of his party finances.

    The man is morally bankrupt.