http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8527170.stmQuote:
Originally Posted by BBC News
This story just keeps getting worse, I can see something like this not going away for weeks and damaging his chances more than anything else.
Printable View
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8527170.stmQuote:
Originally Posted by BBC News
This story just keeps getting worse, I can see something like this not going away for weeks and damaging his chances more than anything else.
The whole lot of them are vicious zealots.
Most likely he shouted a few times and because it's the prime minister its bullying so they need to make some money out of it and also put it in the media so we can all be really shocked and think of him as evil person because the Prime Minister actually shouted.
These three or four people who contacted the Charity didn't contact the papers or make money out of it. They felt the need to anonymously go to an anti-bully charity about this. And bare in mind there's probably been more who have been bullied and didn't contact the helpline.
The guy heading the observer was the guy who kicked it all off (Probably to make money but also influence the election), the charity is simply verifying. The victims have probably kept quiet because of loyalty to the Labour party.
It's been well known for years he gets angry for years and is generally quite a rude man, this is further evidence.
Did the MPs/staff tell Christine Pratt? Because the charity could not release this information for obvious convidential reasons. Pretty pathetic they've contacted a bullying charity, at their ages when it must be something so incredibly trivial and petty :P
aww bless them that's cute
An anti-bullying charity? We are talking about the people who are running the country for goodness sake.
Tell her to stop being such a Pratt and move on..
For a man that has no emotion he sure does seem to get angry....
apparently he threw a printer on the floor in a rage. it must be hard to be PM.
Oh no! I just realised! The Tories have been telling lies non stop and the British public have fell for it. That means they will vote Tories this summer and regret it when they get in power. That means I won't have a damn job. No job = no money.
I need a way to make some money ... quick. I mean it can't be that hard, I work for the PM.
I know! STORIES! They always earn money. Sell my story and make some quick cash.
Doesn't matter if he fires me, I will be gone in the summer anyway when that other man gets in power.
While you were creating some ridiculous and far-fetched story about how the Conservatives are indirectly responsible for this you have skipped over the part that Gordon Brown isn't the nice man he likes to be on Piers Morgan's show and the fact he is a terrible leader who rules his staff through fear and bullying. You have missed the point once again and attempted to turn it on the Conservatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saucy
It's like you think the Conservatives making a statistical error is a cause for celebration, when infact the real statistic was 5.4% of girls in the most deprived communities fell pregnant before their 18th birthday. That's no cause for a celebration, that shows the disgusting failure of Labour being incharge for 13 years. Missing the point, once again.
A figure which has decreased thanks to Labour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordy
Missing the point, once again.
I'm not the one who misses the point, I stick to it rather than indirectly blaming a certain party for everything. I some how doubt it's decreased unless you can show me otherwise. After 13 years in government they're capable of doing whatever they wish anyway, it's a high figure at any rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saucy
To sum this up please consider the fact that although I support Labour, Gordon Brown is, IMHO, a liability as PM although as Chancellor he did a great job.
Okay,
1. A journalist writes a book saying he is a bully and needs publicity.
2. Magically a 'Stop Bullying' help line suddenly starts getting calls from people who say Gordon Brown is bullying them but who can't disclose who they are as it is 'confidential' - Hmm basically anybody could be phoning up and can you see anybody working for Gordon Brown phoning up one of these lines when there are so many people they could have told in confidence and can in fact make complaints to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
Doesn't take a brain surgeon to work out what's going on here, surely?
*Money, Money, Money*
wow tough .... gordon browns a *REMOVED* anyway.
Edited by Tash. (Forum Moderator): Please don't avoid the filter.
He may be crap but he's not a bully, of course he will shout sometimes it's not exactly the easiest job in the world.
I find it rather odd that a confidential help line would release information like this.... or that the woman in charge of this help line owns a fee-paying counselling company that is regularly recommended by said help line, or that people from said help line are now beginning to resign or that the woman in charge of said help line is now saying she made no indication Brown was involved....
It's t'other way round I think. Labour close the gap on the Tories to 6 points, a book claiming there are darker sides to Brown is released, then someone calls a help line, a CONFIDENTIAL help line release the information, THEN an inquest is started? This confidential help line would've contacted No. 10 first to address the issue, rather than the media. So all the ministers come out and deny bullying, but admit Brown has a temper, and then the help line retract the fact Brown's a bully AND they start resigning? It stinks. The lot of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saucy
Oh he definetly did a great job as Chancellor; I mean selling your countrys gold while its at an all-time low and announcing your intention to sell it to the markets a week before is what a failed A level Business student wouldn't even do. This government couldn't run an ice cream van.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
They could, just not well.
Well judging by the nations finances at the moment, with debts levels like that they'd probably do a runner to another country before the banks would close in on them;- much like in real life when Labour politicians fall from office after leaving the country in the piss (Neil Kinnock, Peter Mandelson) they fly off to Europe where they get a well paid job in the EU, despite being hated back in the UK for the damage they've and their party has caused.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrselenagomez
This is ridiculous.
The bullying helpline is CONFIDENTIAL. Meaning they don't disclose details of conversations and absolutely do not tell the world who has phoned their helplines.
I smell a conservative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Hmm well I suspect they would sell off all the ice creams so cheap that they made no profit. They would then go after other ice cream vans they have nothing to do with, accusing them of having mega poisonous FAB Lollies, however after further investigation it would turn out they don't and in reality, they just wanted to steal all their Cornettos. They would also sign away their ice creams and their power over to a larger ice cream firm which would slowly pick off all the independent ice cream firms. Workers from other ice cream vans would come over to their ice cream van and begin stealing all the 99p Flakes yet the government wouldn't mind, despite the van getting increasingly over-crowded.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrselenagomez
I agree, I mean its not as if being the Prime Minister is a stressful job or anything like that so I can't understand why people are making such a fuss about the person who, well just runs the country swearing and having a bit of a shout. I'm sure no one moaned when Churchill shouted at them, they probably knew they deserved it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshimitsui
I went to visit it at the federal reserve :DQuote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8515798.stmQuote:
In response, Labour said the correct figure of 5.4% represented a fall from 6% in 1998.
I like how you never look at any positives the Labour have done. e.g. MINIMUM WAGE. They have done so much but people such as yourself only look at the negatives. They are doing a better job than UKIP ever could - a party who is full of false promises only because they know they will never get in power, so they might aswell say what the hell they want. I bet even if UKIP said they are going to give everyone wings, you will believe it and think it will really happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Anyone with a common sense (which unfortunately a lot of people in this discussion seem to lack) will know that Prime Minister or President of any country is not a easy job. People who work for the leaders know this and they know how tough it is. They know they will get shouted at if they mess up. If you cant handle the pressure, don't take the job and stop whining.
I agree and quite honestly, Undertaker, sometimes your comments are about as informed as an ostrich burying his head in the sand and expressing himself through the parts exposed. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Saucy
Achievements of Gordon Brown as Chancellor of Exchequer.
Independence of Bank of England.
4 days into his job he handed over control of Monetary policy from no.11 to the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee. This is widely regarded as being a key factor in creating economic stability and a low inflationary environment for the long period of economic expansion. (Note the Conservatives had made moves towards independence, making the step easier to make)
Longest Period of Economic Expansion on record.
Economic Growth has averaged 2.8% also the growth has been remarkably stable, the boom and bust cycles which characterised the 80s and early 90s have been completely avoided. The success of high growth and low inflation has earned generous praise from the IMF and World Bank. The chief economist of OECD, Jean-Philippe Cotis, described Britain as a "goldilocks" economy – This means they had the perfect balance of strong growth and low inflation. This has obviously been knocked back a bit by the GLOBAL recession.
Unemployment has fallen to the lowest level since the early 1970s.
In May 1997 the number unemployed was 1.7 million, this fell to 925,000 and although has risen again due the GLOBAL recession it still hasn't peaked to that figure again.
6. Inflation on Target.
Inflation has remained within the government’s target of CPI 2% +/-1. This is a remarkable record considering the recent inflation history of the UK. True much of the credit can be given to other sources. But unlike the previous Conservative governments, Gordon Brown never allowed himself to get carried away into thinking there had been an economic miracle. The Conservatives belief the economy could grow at 4%+ in the 1980s caused the boom and bust of the 1991.
7. Avoided Joining the EURO as the Eurozone went into recession.
His 5 economic tests were designed to prevent premature entry. There seems little interest in reviving such as idea. The UK has not been burdened with an interest rate unsuitable for the UK economy.
Added to that he introduced:
1. Pension credits, cold winter payments and grants to insulate homes etc
2. Working Tax and Child Tax Credits
3. Educational maintenance allowance
All this has helped millions of people to have a better standard of living as opposed to the privileged few.
They have been far more flexible in their approach as well to aid the economy by introducing scrappage allowances for cars and now boiler systems. Allowing a cut in VAT and Stamp Duty on houses for a limited time.
These are just a few examples.
This is stark contrast to the Conservative's handling of the economy in the 1980's and 1990s which was very much boom and bust with inflation reaching 11% at one point and unemployment reaching 3milion. Also there was this classic. In the run up to the 1979 election, Labour were obsessed with the Tories planning to double VAT. Howe and Thatcher dismissed it as a smear. Howe was pretty explicit: “We have absolutely no intention of doubling VAT.” The Daily Mail was so convinced, it included the “double VAT” charge in a splash on “Labour’s dirty dozen lies”, just days before the campaign concluded.
The trouble was that the Tories had already agreed a “massive” hike in VAT a good year before winning the election. Sure, they didn’t want to double the rate. The secret plan, hatched at Howe’s house on the Fentiman Road, was completely different: to raise VAT from 8 to 15 per cent. Howe announced it in his first Budget. So not quite double but a devestating blow to the electorate who had to pay the huge increases and was probably the biggest indirect tax on the british people of all time.
Get over it, there are much more important things to deal with than a mere bullying case. It's not like presidents in the PMs or presidents of other countries in the past didn't bully. They run it.
As a point above mentioned, whilst on the subject of UK political parties, UKIP is indeed a joke. I will tell you one such example, where they say to limit EU jobs. However, this will have a severe impact and strain between relations of other EU countries and probably many of UK workers in other EU countries would be kicked out. Labour is the sensible option. Their policy of isolationalism is also quite sensless, we are a global community. If they want to go back to the dark ages, they can do so with such policies. Many countries, expecially within the EU block work as a string, where if one country cuts that string off, it would mean trouble. UKIP, is if something, a party which is not open as demonstrated by their MPs voting so.
I doubt Labour will keep him around as PM anyway. He's too incompetent to run a country and I imagine that spills over to frustration leading to these outbursts.
Mainly because Labour never have any positives, if selling gold at dirt cheap prices by the Chancellor is their best then its pretty crap to say the least. I like how you stand by Labour to the hilt really, talk about forming an opinion of your own. "I bet even if UKIP said they are going to give everyone wings, you will believe it and think it will really happen." - stop it with the jokes mate, your splitting my sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saucy
So Gordon Brown did or did not sell gold at dirty cheap prices? - yes he did, its fact look it up if you wish - talk about burying your head in the sand.Quote:
I agree and quite honestly, Undertaker, sometimes your comments are about as informed as an ostrich burying his head in the sand and expressing himself through the parts exposed. :P
Achievements of Gordon Brown as Chancellor of Exchequer.
This did not create economic stability, it was simply a move that gave the Bank of England more power to take charge over something it already basically made the decisions for.Quote:
Independence of Bank of England.
4 days into his job he handed over control of Monetary policy from no.11 to the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee. This is widely regarded as being a key factor in creating economic stability and a low inflationary environment for the long period of economic expansion. (Note the Conservatives had made moves towards independence, making the step easier to make)
I'm not saying its not global and as I have said many times before, the recession is not the fault of the government. In that case and what I know as fact; neither was the boom time. This government simply stepped into office at a good time economically when the world market was booming and it would of occured under anyone who was in office at the time, the same with the collapse.Quote:
Longest Period of Economic Expansion on record.
Economic Growth has averaged 2.8% also the growth has been remarkably stable, the boom and bust cycles which characterised the 80s and early 90s have been completely avoided. The success of high growth and low inflation has earned generous praise from the IMF and World Bank. The chief economist of OECD, Jean-Philippe Cotis, described Britain as a "goldilocks" economy – This means they had the perfect balance of strong growth and low inflation. This has obviously been knocked back a bit by the GLOBAL recession.
The difference is that Gordon Brown was so keen to accept responsibility for the boom time, after all he "abolished boom and bust" which the man should know is impossible, even if we had Jesus running the Treasury. The Labour government was ill-equipped because like all socialist governments, it didnt know where and when to stop spending and it still hasnt.
Ahh I was hoping someone would bring this up;Quote:
Unemployment has fallen to the lowest level since the early 1970s.
In May 1997 the number unemployed was 1.7 million, this fell to 925,000 and although has risen again due the GLOBAL recession it still hasn't peaked to that figure again.
Unemployment figures do not include the other factors such as people who are on disability benefits and other benefits, the figure is estimated that the total number of people unemployed in the United Kingdom is over 8 million people who are economically inactive when a lot of them could be active.
Hang on a minute, and what has this achieved? - boom and bust comes anyway, so in reality if hes done anything he just hurt growth during the boom time. Recessions will always occur under any government and this one if no exception, whether you like it or not.Quote:
6. Inflation on Target.
Inflation has remained within the government’s target of CPI 2% +/-1. This is a remarkable record considering the recent inflation history of the UK. True much of the credit can be given to other sources. But unlike the previous Conservative governments, Gordon Brown never allowed himself to get carried away into thinking there had been an economic miracle. The Conservatives belief the economy could grow at 4%+ in the 1980s caused the boom and bust of the 1991.
Good, and if the 5 economic tests had suceeded he would of signed us over to a new, still unstable currency of which the United Kingdom would of had no control over. We-do-not-want-euro.Quote:
7. Avoided Joining the EURO as the Eurozone went into recession.
His 5 economic tests were designed to prevent premature entry. There seems little interest in reviving such as idea. The UK has not been burdened with an interest rate unsuitable for the UK economy.
All very nice handing out free money, but whether or not you've noticed its not actually free at all. It comes from taxes, which have been raised and raised to pay for some of the biggest wastes ever such as EMA for example which is just ludicrous. £30 a week for teenagers to spend on sweets, booze and clothes is simply fantastic isnt it, meanwhile families have to cope year on year with rising taxes.Quote:
Added to that he introduced:
1. Pension credits, cold winter payments and grants to insulate homes etc
2. Working Tax and Child Tax Credits
3. Educational maintenance allowance
All this has helped millions of people to have a better standard of living as opposed to the privileged few.
They have been far more flexible in their approach as well to aid the economy by introducing scrappage allowances for cars and now boiler systems. Allowing a cut in VAT and Stamp Duty on houses for a limited time.
Heres an idea; instead of re-distributing wealth like this government and so many other socialist governments do, why not let the people spend their own wages on what they wish instead of the government taking it and spending it on red tape, complete waste of money 'projects' and things such as EMA.
Do you know why VAT and other things had to be sorted in the Conservatives first years? - do you really because it sounds to me as though you are defending the most pathetic government in history (Callgahans) of which just to survive we had to go to the IMF. You know Thatchers reforms? - yes they were harsh, yes times were tough but at the end of it - this country was a complete turnaround from what it had been under decades of rotting socialism which has set in and were turning us into 'the sick man of Europe'.Quote:
These are just a few examples.
This is stark contrast to the Conservative's handling of the economy in the 1980's and 1990s which was very much boom and bust with inflation reaching 11% at one point and unemployment reaching 3milion. Also there was this classic. In the run up to the 1979 election, Labour were obsessed with the Tories planning to double VAT. Howe and Thatcher dismissed it as a smear. Howe was pretty explicit: “We have absolutely no intention of doubling VAT.” The Daily Mail was so convinced, it included the “double VAT” charge in a splash on “Labour’s dirty dozen lies”, just days before the campaign concluded.
The trouble was that the Tories had already agreed a “massive” hike in VAT a good year before winning the election. Sure, they didn’t want to double the rate. The secret plan, hatched at Howe’s house on the Fentiman Road, was completely different: to raise VAT from 8 to 15 per cent. Howe announced it in his first Budget. So not quite double but a devestating blow to the electorate who had to pay the huge increases and was probably the biggest indirect tax on the british people of all time.
I suppose you also oppose the privatisation of the businesses and closure of the mines.
Oh so Europe deals via threats does it?Quote:
Get over it, there are much more important things to deal with than a mere bullying case. It's not like presidents in the PMs or presidents of other countries in the past didn't bully. They run it.
As a point above mentioned, whilst on the subject of UK political parties, UKIP is indeed a joke. I will tell you one such example, where they say to limit EU jobs. However, this will have a severe impact and strain between relations of other EU countries and probably many of UK workers in other EU countries would be kicked out. Labour is the sensible option. Their policy of isolationalism is also quite sensless, we are a global community. If they want to go back to the dark ages, they can do so with such policies. Many countries, expecially within the EU block work as a string, where if one country cuts that string off, it would mean trouble. UKIP, is if something, a party which is not open as demonstrated by their MPs voting so.
If they are going to use threats over what the electorate wants then let them if they wish, I and many others couldnt care less if the French-German control game gets disrupted by the United Kingdom, just as it has in the past really I guess you could say. Again, wrong party. UKIP is not isolationist, they want to improve trade links with India and the Commonwealth but want it so that we can trade with Europe but not be ruled by Europe. If its worked for hundreds of years, why should it be impossible now?
The answer is, it isnt.
Unlike you last post you don't say he sold all the gold but in any event yes it did sell some at a low price but if that's all you can come up with it's pretty minor considering that Britains Gross GDP is approx 1 trillion and this was a figure of 2 billion.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
The labout government may have stepped in a reasonable time economically BUT it continued to maintain an economy that was the envy of the world for many years and it cannot be denied by anybody that he didn't do a pretty good job - doesn't matter if he was labour or not and whether or not you or I like Gordon Brown.Quote:
This did not create economic stability, it was simply a move that gave the Bank of England more power to take charge over something it already basically made the decisions for.
I'm not saying its not global and as I have said many times before, the recession is not the fault of the government. In that case and what I know as fact; neither was the boom time. This government simply stepped into office at a good time economically when the world market was booming and it would of occured under anyone who was in office at the time, the same with the collapse.
The difference is that Gordon Brown was so keen to accept responsibility for the boom time, after all he "abolished boom and bust" which the man should know is impossible, even if we had Jesus running the Treasury. The Labour government was ill-equipped because like all socialist governments, it didnt know where and when to stop spending and it still hasnt.
Unemployment has never included these people whatever Government has been in and yes I agree that probably a proportion of them could be active however based on the fact that the same tests apply unemployment is still lower. The labour government has abolished incapacity benefit and replaced it with an Employment and Support Allowance. This means that many people currently regarded as having conditions so severe that they are exempt from even having to have a medical assessment will, in the future, have to undertake work related activities or have their benefits cuts. This is radical and I don't know any government in recent times that has taken these type of steps.Quote:
Unemployment figures do not include the other factors such as people who are on disability benefits and other benefits, the figure is estimated that the total number of people unemployed in the United Kingdom is over 8 million people who are economically inactive when a lot of them could be active.
This is a fundemental disagreement about what one believes in. I believe thatQuote:
All very nice handing out free money, but whether or not you've noticed its not actually free at all. It comes from taxes, which have been raised and raised to pay for some of the biggest wastes ever such as EMA for example which is just ludicrous. £30 a week for teenagers to spend on sweets, booze and clothes is simply fantastic isnt it, meanwhile families have to cope year on year with rising taxes.
Heres an idea; instead of re-distributing wealth like this government and so many other socialist governments do, why not let the people spend their own wages on what they wish instead of the government taking it and spending it on red tape, complete waste of money 'projects' and things such as EMA.
it is socially responsible for a government to look after it's people. You basically believe in a ' laissez-faire' style of running the country where everybody has to fend for themselves- I presume you would still want a national health service and free education though? What you forget is that EMA replied thousands of unemployed teenagers on the dole. Labour abolished benefits for teenagers aged 16-18 and replaced it with the EMA to encourage teenagers to go to further education to get skills. What they spend it on is their business, contributes to the economy and they have to attend and work hard at college to get it. It is not automatically paid. For every lecture a student attends a sheet has to be signed to verify it.
No I don't disagree with you about the state of the economy at allQuote:
Do you know why VAT and other things had to be sorted in the Conservatives first years? - do you really because it sounds to me as though you are defending the most pathetic government in history (Callgahans) of which just to survive we had to go to the IMF. You know Thatchers reforms? - yes they were harsh, yes times were tough but at the end of it - this country was a complete turnaround from what it had been under decades of rotting socialism which has set in and were turning us into 'the sick man of Europe'. I suppose you also oppose the privatisation of the businesses and closure of the mines.
but raising VAT by that amount hit everyone in the pocket and disproportionately the poorer of the nation, especially pensioners,who could least afford it. Measures could have been taken to spread it around a bit more via direct taxation. Then we had the farce of the Poll Tax that cost the country millions to implement and was abolished within 12months.
The conservatives had their own economic problems well into their second parliament.The pound sterling was forced out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism on 16 September 1992, a day thereafter referred to as "Black Wednesday. Soon after approximately one million householders faced re-possession of their homes during a recession that saw a sharp rise in unemployment, taking it close to 3,000,000(not including the economically inactive) . The party subsequently lost much of its reputation for good financial stewardship although it did recover. It's not all black and white - there is good and bad in every government.
No I don't oppose some privatisation but history has shown that privatising the railways has been a big mistake as the companies just haven't invested in it and it lags behind the rest of the world. I also don't agree with the privisation of cleaning within hospitals which is agree has been an unmitigated disaster - UKIP even say that it would bring matrons back and if so then it follows that the cleaners should also be brought back as there is no way to enforce a standard at the present time. As far as the closures of the Mines are concerned it is difficult because I do forsee a time when we might need these reserves of coal but I agree that Arthur Scargill was not a friend to anybody not even his own union. I do not blame Margaret Thatcher for the closure of the mines I blame him and his militant socialist friends.
There is a hell of a difference between red socialism and pink socialism as it is today.
LOL, is that the 'nice Catzsy' way of saying "you're talking out yer backside" Only you would do it the long way round hehe, gotta love ya :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
Anyway yes back to 'bullying.' I personally think the word 'bullying' is overused. It is true that employees should expect true professionalism from their bosses at all times but I think they also fail to realise that the Prime Minister is also a human being, who makes mistakes + loses his cool.
On top of that, the whole thing looks fishy. What has the world come to when parties have to try to gain votes through rubbishing the opponents rather than through their policies... oh wait, been like that for a while now :(