Gordon....Ramsay?

grimupnorth Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:31:01 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

What on earth is a LABOUR PM doing inviting more Tories into his team. Not just any old Tories, either. None other than Patrick Mercer, who quit as shadow homeland security spokesman after a row over alleged racist comments, ie calling someone a "black b******d" is to advise Lord West on security matters. Jack Straw, then the leader of the Commons, said Mr Mercer's comments were "breathtaking and dreadful". Wonder what he makes of this, then.



In another fantastic appointment, less sickening but equally inexcusable, John Bercow will advise on support for children with learning difficulties. Lib Dem MP Matthew Taylor will also advise the PM, on rural planning. How bloody marvellous..Does it never occur to Brown to give a job to anyone even remotely left of centre? He talks quite openly of an end to "the politics of division". Yes, that would be good. How good it would be to see a Cabinet in which "all the talents " of the Labour Party were represented. As they used to be.
So people with expertise like Jon Cruddas, John McDonnell and Alan Simpson would be offered decent jobs ( not pathetic sops) and be able to contribute to the challenges of Government and help keep things on track in a centre-left direction. In our dreams......
I think Brown is insulting his MPs, insulting his members ( who let's not forget never elected him anyway) and utterly discrediting the Labour Party in a way hitherto only seen with Ramsay MacDonald. I am , in a word, appalled.


tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Gordon....Ramsay? | 34 comments (34 topical)

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#1)

by HenryG on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 08:08:12 PM GMT

I don't want to label Gordon Brown Ramsay Mac just yet (!) but I'm inclined to agree with some of your points. This is very short-term tactics aimed at destabilising the opposition rather than good Government.  My favourite Labour blogger Don Paskini makes a good argument:


"There are plenty of cheerleaders in the press for the strategy of 'dominating the centre' by bringing Tories and Lib Dems into our big tent while picking fights with the unions about pay cuts and forcing lone parents out to work with threats of benefit cuts. But while we can win an election without the support of people who think like Patrick Mercer (as we did in the past three elections), we can't possibly win without the enthusiastic support of public sector workers and people working hard to bring up a family."





Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#2)

by Radford Mann on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 08:18:59 PM GMT

I absolutely agree with you, Grim. It Brown wants a government of all the talents he could start by asking a few socialists to take part. But as it is, well, as my mum would say, it's enough to make yer spit.


Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#3)

by HOWLERMONKEY on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 09:20:32 PM GMT

Unfortunately Matthew Taylor has been included in the "all Government of all the talents". It would have been first advisable to have picked someone that actually has a talent. Matthew after a long career has achieved nothing, and is utterly useless...We knowe this here in Cornwall.   So what it just is going on? Are we looking for losers to carry an unpopular can? Or has the leadership flipped it's lid??


Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#4)

by SimonHH on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 09:45:10 PM GMT

And you can add 'insulting the electorate' to that.


Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#5)

by grimupnorth on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:40:51 PM GMT

And to cap  it all Brown is now praising Thatcher as a "conviction  politician." Yes, she had convictions all right. As you  know Gordon, they  put millions of  people on the dole, destroyed the  mining  industry, condemned whole communities to poverty, and took away trade union rights.She said "there is no such thing as society." Courted Ronald Reagan.Engaged in an unnecessary war in the Falklands. Brought the labour movement to its knees   and those of us young at the time, yourself included,  campaigned tirelessly against the Tories. Now  none of that matters? Even the biggest apologists I know  for Brown are dumbstruck at his latest pronouncements. I am  disgusted.


[ Parent ]

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#7)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:58:41 PM GMT

Lol - ok, somebody did pick up on the Thatcher comment just as I typed the message below!


[ Parent ]

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#8)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 12:00:52 AM GMT

Don't agree at all with your view that the Falklands War was 'unnecessary' either btw.

Remember, Argentina invaded British soveriegn territory (where most people want to be British), not the other way around.


[ Parent ]

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#10)

by jkitleft on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 11:30:00 AM GMT

I don't think it was unnecessary. I think you should have replace 'unnecessary war' with 'ramming ultra-conservative social views down Britain's throat'. Falklands wasn't unnecessary, but I think we should have given them independence or parliamentary representattion within the UK Parliament. I've tended to think Argentina has more right for soverignty of the Falklands, but certainly not when there was a military dictatorship who wanted to use Falklands as a pawn


[ Parent ]

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#11)

by JM on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 11:35:42 AM GMT

What makes you thin that Argentina has more right to sovereignty of the Falklands?


[ Parent ]

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#12)

by jkitleft on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 11:48:01 AM GMT

I used to think that. Britsh colonialism is somehow worse than Argentinian colonialism, or in the case of Gibralter, Spanish colonialism. They got there first. That used to be my attitude, I think our overseas territiories need representation or independence.


[ Parent ]

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#13)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 12:25:56 PM GMT

But the people of the Falkland Islands want to stay British - they do not want to be Argentinian. Giving the territory over to Argentina would be the most undemocratic outcome possible.

It's the same as Northern Ireland when I see people on here commenting that Ireland should be united. Well, if the majority of the people in Northern Ireland want to stay British (which they do), then Northern Ireland must stay British - that's the only democratic thing to do.

We can't start righting historical wrongs because we'd end up re-drawing the borders and maps for every single country on earth. All we can do is solve problems today and as it stands the clear majority in both Northern Ireland and the Falkland Islands want to stay British and therefore we have a duty to defend them.


[ Parent ]

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#14)

by jkitleft on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:51:49 PM GMT

then we need to give them parliamentary representation.


[ Parent ]

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#15)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 11:28:58 PM GMT

But then they'd have to be ruled by London which isn't what they want.

They only want the British to intervene on defence and foreign policy matters, not on domestic affairs.

The Falkland Islands are "owned" by the United Kingdom, but they are not part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, they shouldn't be represented in the UK Parliament.


[ Parent ]

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#6)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:57:54 PM GMT

Well, an extreme analogy, but some good points.


I'm not too keen on Brown's idea of bringing non-Labour people into government, but I suppose advisory roles are ok.


However, I think he could have picked better people than Mercer and Bercow. Mercer, especially shouldn't have been included given what he said and our reaction to his comments.


But surely the more worrying aspect of this 'consensual politics' (and I would have thought a few on here would have picked up on it) was what he had to say today about Thatcher. Sure, there's nothing wrong with admiring some of her reforms and 'conviction politics', but his praise of her went a bit too far for my liking, even if he was trying to embarrass the Tories.


Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#9)

by grimupnorth on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 12:18:27 AM GMT

I have  just commented  on this  on my blog http://grimmerupnorth.blogspot.com
A "bit too far?" Yes, just a bit....


[ Parent ]

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#16)

by TonyH on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 09:57:07 AM GMT

'None other than Patrick Mercer, who quit as shadow homeland security spokesman after a row over alleged racist comments, ie calling someone a "black b******d" is to advise Lord West on security matters.'

This isn't exactly correct - he (allegedly!) said it was a black person's lot in the army to be referred to as a black b*****d.
(I'll take a chance and play devil's advocate for a moment) What if he's correct? Did his remark lead to a measured discussion on racism in the armed forces? No! The country knee-jerked to an old formula: "Tory plus race comment equals row plus sacking."

I suspect had he been anything other than a white Tory - he wouldn't have had to quit over it.

That's an aside, I do agree with the point that there must surely be better people to appoint from Conservative and Liberal Democrat ranks.

If genuinely motivated, the fact that the Prime Minister is giving advisory roles to those from outside the party demonstrates he is more interested in managing the country than despicable political point scoring.


Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#17)

by swatantra on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 01:11:14 PM GMT

We're getting a bit cheesed off with all this 'extending the hand of friendship', you're likely to get it bitten off.
How could Brown dismiss the comments of that idiot Mercer, straight after Cameron had the balls to sack him for expessing those inappropriate views.


[ Parent ]

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#18)

by TonyH on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 02:47:25 PM GMT

But it isn't "extending the hand of friendship" is it?

Appointing Tory advisers does nothing for the Conservative Party. It shows our Party leader to care more about the job than grubby party politics.

As I said - I agree he may have picked someone better but can I ask you why you think Mercer's comments were inappropriate?


[ Parent ]

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#19)

by swatantra on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 03:52:01 PM GMT

He seems to think it quite acceptable to call someome a black b*****d, just to motivate them. Tell that to the wretched Millwall fans next Saturday, they'll be laughing with glee.


[ Parent ]

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#20)

by TonyH on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:18:30 PM GMT

I doubt that's what he thinks.

I took from his comment that he was stating (what he percieved) as fact - i.e. "black people in the army are often referrerd to as black bxxxx"

Rather than your interpretation that he meant something like: "It's a black man's lot to be referred to as a black ...and rightly so."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6954931.stm
What he actually said was that it happens.

"In March, Mr Mercer, who spent 25 years in the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters regiment, caused a storm by appearing to suggest being called a 'black bastard' was a normal part of Army life.

He told The Times: "If someone is slow on the assault course, you'd get people shouting: 'Come on you fat bastard, come on you ginger bastard, come on you black bastard.'"


Do you doubt what he's saying? Sounds very plausible. Yes, regrettable, unfortunate, hurtful, tasteless, racist but also plausible.

Speaking as someone who is headed very much in the direction of being a fat bxxxxx - I think there is a case to be made to say he's stupid for not choosing his words more carefully - but not racist.


[ Parent ]

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#22)

by doctordunc on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 07:09:45 PM GMT

The problem with what he said was the context: it was not just that it happened but that it was no worse than any other form of 'teasing' ('fat bastard', 'ginger bastard', etc.)

Brown is trying to destroy the labour movement.


[ Parent ]

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#23)

by swatantra on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:29:57 AM GMT

Teasing? Teasing? I'd be inclined to give them a 'prescott'! And they'd deserve it.


[ Parent ]

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#28)

by doctordunc on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 10:42:32 AM GMT


Obviously I agree.  That was why what he said was so reprehensible.  It is not the reported speech that is the real problem, but the point that he was making with the reported speech.


[ Parent ]

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#21)

by grimupnorth on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:57:47 PM GMT

You   presumably mean "despicable" stuff  like winning elections and then appointing the brightest and best from your own side......I always thought that WAS  the  point of being in a  party.Brown totally ignores anyone   in our ranks of the hard left, left, cenrre-left  or soft left. He prefers right-wing Tories . A good message for Labour?  Morivational  for members ? I think not.....


[ Parent ]

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#24)

by TonyH on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 10:36:28 AM GMT

Come on now Grim - Dunc - are you being deliberately unfair? For goodness sake lads - I understand context! I also understand the media and how something like this can be misrepresented.

What I'm saying is pretty simple. Mercer never said he condoned it, he never supported it, he didn't say it was a good thing - he simply pointed out that it happens.

All that is unimportant - I was merely pointing out the the original post misrepresented him in that it said "He called someone a black bxxxxx". He did not.

Why the hell am I defending Tories? - you may ask. In this instance - it's because that statement about Mercer above is not fair. Sure - pick a better Tory to take an advisory role - but let's not defame this one - or if we are - do it with facts.

That's basically your issue - discomfort is about having a Tory take an advisory role with a Labour Government. I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm saying I personally have no issue with it. I consider it a demonstration that getting the job done is more important than the advancement of the Prime Minister's Party.

The flip side is that by doing this - helps Labour stay in power. He appears to transcend party politics which makes him more attractive to the vast majority of people who don't give a damn who rules the country as long as thing work.

So yes, Grim, to the electorate - this is a good message for Labour.


[ Parent ]

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#25)

by TonyH on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 10:38:58 AM GMT

I forgot to mention - I said "despicable political point scoring".


[ Parent ]

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#26)

by grimupnorth on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 12:36:13 PM GMT

1. I don't agree. People want to see distinctions  between parties, not a great amorphous mass
2. I haven't spoken to   one single LP member who thinks it's good. Horrified is the word which springs to  mind.
3. Thanks for the thought  but sadly, I am  not  a lad. Or  a lass. I am a woman .......


[ Parent ]

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#27)

by TonyH on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:33:42 PM GMT

1. People want to see the system work. Wouldn't a better distinction to show them be between the competent and the incompetent?

2. Ok, but the electorate is not exclusively Labour and it is they to whom the Party is ultimately answerable.

3. Your not being a lad is not a sad thing at all!
(Paddy's like me use the term 'lads' like Americans use 'guys' - it's non-gender specific)


[ Parent ]

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#31)

by repub on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 09:05:46 AM GMT

Tony lets not talk about competent and incompetent. There are different ways of doing things competently and incompetently.

You want a socialist or social democratic government ..or.. you pursue a conservative government.


[ Parent ]

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#32)

by TonyH on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 11:29:56 AM GMT

Harumph! I posted something in response and it failed.

Basically Repub, I'm not sure I  understand your post but I completely disagree with (what I think) your asserting.

I'm ok, in principle, with some Tory or Lib Dem involvement in a Labour administration. I consider the flip side to that to be dogmatic and exclusive - i.e. that one must be a Labour member or supporter to be able to provide meaningful advice to the PM.

I also think it's wrong that one should choose exclusively and in absolute terms a socialist or social democratic government or a conservative one and that to nod to the opponent or acknowledge him is betrayal. It is akin to suggesting that at every turning they are exclusively wrong and we are exclusively right. Most turnings yes - but not every one.

We have gone far beyond the crude and simple choice between left and right, red and blue, worker and employer, rich or poor, north or south - it's much more complicated than that. There are no absolute positions.

I far prefer to tak about who is most competent - we have shown that we can best manage the economy, education, redistribution of wealth, crime etc compared to them. The Party has won three elections on the back of it. Labour is competent - the Conservatives are not. I'd like that to continue to be the case(!) and I'd like us to highlight that when interacting with the electorate.

I can see how people arrive at a different view but, respectfully, I completely and utterly disagree.


[ Parent ]

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#29)

by doctordunc on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 10:47:37 AM GMT


I wasn't being deliberately unfair, but I was answering one point while not conceding another.  You're right, Mercer's crime was not calling someone a 'black bastard'.  His crime was suggesting that people who complained of racism in the army were over-reacting.  So, you're right, the original summary of Mercer's disgrace was inaccurate.  But I'm not giving any ground on condemning the man.

I find it deeply worrying that Brown would appoint a character who Cameron had sacked under such circumstances. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#30)

by redrover on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 07:56:57 AM GMT

Watching him on Newsnight as a special security advisor, he was asked by Paxo about a uk organisation with known terrorist links.  Paxo asked a simple question, should they be banned?


Mercer couldn't give a definitive answer, as advisor to Brown he sounded confused.  The Tory position is to ban them, Labour's is to consult the evidence.


Mercer sat on the fence, and made Brown look weak on terrorism.


Is it possible that CMD let these people go as double agents to make us look stupid on such matters and the joke is on us?


Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#33)

by jkitleft on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 02:58:37 PM GMT

I don't mind inviting people of opposite parties into government, but probably not in the UK, except perhaps for Ashdown. I could quite happily make him a cabinet secretary, because even though I have more in common with Labour, he's one of the best politicians in terms of foreign policy. If I was POTUS, I could invite Bernie Sanders into the cabinet and then invite Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and William Cohen, and of course John Mccain. Also Joe Lieberman could be included. The point is we have to find more bipartisan ways of working.


Re: Gordon....Ramsay? (#34)

by MacArthur on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 07:28:35 PM GMT

GB is messing with the Tories' heads, looking to enlist some converts at the same time.

Essentially GB is looking to humiliate the man he dismisses as someone who is anything but a "conviction politician".   How does he best do this -  by inviting one to tea in the media's full gaze.  


Gordon....Ramsay? | 34 comments (34 topical)