Gordon Brown: Choose your role

The news that Gordon Brown has signed up for a speaking tour to support his new book on his (mis)handling of the economy and financial crisis, should make us think about his role.

He is still an MP, but has yet to vote, speak or make more than a fleeting appearance in Parliament since the election. He is being paid an MPs salary whilst not representing his constituents in Westminster. It is quite a disgrace, and like Margaret Moran who "was too ill" to attend but could be seen on video in the Lobbygate scandal, he should hang his head.

Whilst he's been taking the Queen's shilling he has been putting pen to paper to tell us his immense wisdom on taking the British Economy to the brink whilst blaming the whole problem on America. A man who hasn't apologised for his bad handling of the nations finances is trying to further his own, at £60K per event for unfortunate people to listen to a pack of half truths and dodgy statistics.

There should be a rule for Westminster that in order to be paid an MPs salary you should turn up for at least 40% of the votes and spend two days in the Palace of Westminster a week, unless you can provide a doctor's note. It's what the rest of us have to do!

Squiffy.

Gordon Brown : Dissembling and disingenuous

That's the verdict on Gordon Brown's performance at the Iraq inquiry. Lords Boyce and Guthrie, both ex-chiefs of the defence staff, have given their opinions on Mr Brown's funding of equipment for Iraq and Afghanistan.

It looks like he used a form of words which is technically correct, but hides the bigger truth that he resisted extra funding for equipment which would have saved lives.

I know which ones I believe, and I think it is a disgrace.

Squiffy.

What do we think of Brown's interview?

Watching the Piers Morgan interview last night was a strange affair. He came across well when discussing his family, you could not help to be touched by the segment when he talked about his children.

He looked different though when discussing politics, when he talked about being angry about Tony Blair becoming leader, he said "but the anger went away quite quickly". I wouldn't class the seething resentment of 10 years being "quite quickly". There were points when you wanted to shout at the screen, for instance when GB mentioned that he'd made many mistakes - any interviewer worth his salt would ask "what was your biggest mistake?".

It was clear that Piers Morgan is a family friend, and so would not give the PM a hard time. It does raise questions of political bias in the run up to an election. I understand that David Cameron has turned down a similar offer, but I'm sure that ITV has not offered a friendly interviewer to do it. I can't believe that the ex-editor of the Mirror would give as easy ride to the Tory leader as to the PM.

I expect GB's personal ratings to increase by a few points and maybe an extra percentage on the Labour share. I expect a totally different poll response when GB has to face tough questions from the public, Paxo & Humphreys during an election campaign. He has ducked these media contests in the past, so we'll see in a few weeks time. I can't wait.

Squiffy.

Gordon Brown is going to woo middle England

A bit like the executioner wooing Mary, Queen of Scots. He calls them the 'squeezed middle', hmm, who did the squeezing again? And who will squeeze them again if he got elected for a first time. Gordon Brown. He set the scene with the raid on pensions, and Middle England will now get it's revenge.

George Osborne, reverse that pensions raid and the job will be done.

Squiffy.

Brown knows only one thing, to spend.

An interesting comment in this month's Total Politics by David Starkey was spot on. He says that Gordon Brown's claim to have got us out of recession was the same behaviour as usual.

Basically, Gordon Brown's solution to everything is throw money at it. The banking crisis and recession were no different, and now we will pay for his habit.

Squiffy.

Gordon makes Barack depressed

An interesting interview on this morning's Today with Richard Wolffe, an author who followed Brack Obama's campaign trail, was quite revealing. So far we have been led to believe that President Obama believes Gordon Brown has 'substance' and David Cameron has 'sizzle' but is all froth.

Today we find the truth a little different, Obama found Cameron impressive and although they are from different ends of the political spectrum, they had chemistry. Apparently, Gordon Brown was depressing. This was from President Obama's aides, but I'm sure we can extrapolate that this is the view of the POTUS himself.

I wonder whether Vodafone do upgrades?

Squiffy.

Has he something to hide or is he just rubbish?

I thought that the early release of Ronnie Biggs was wrong, and also the early release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi. In both cases, they did not serve their full sentences - yes I know most people only serve just over half but these people had not even done that. To release them on compassionate grounds sounds great, but where was their compassion when they allowed or made innocent people die?

Following on from these bad decisions, the attention has turned onto our PM and his views about the release of the Lockerbie bomber. Yesterday, on his release from a forced holiday, Mr Brown stated that he found the jubilant scenes in Libya of al-Megrahi's return repulsive.

The PM was repeatedly asked whether it was right for al-Megrahi to be released, and the line repeated was that this is a decision for Scotland's parliament alone and the UK should not have a view.

What a load of bunkum. Firstly, although the legal decision was for Scotland alone its impact on UK foreign policy is profound and should have been considered. Secondly, if GB takes that view then he will not be able to express a view on other issues for which Scotland has sole responsibility. So what happens when the SNP recommends a referendum on independence? Can you imagine Gordon Brown saying that it's entirely a matter for Scotland? Not on your nellie, he'll be the first to say that it shouldn't happen.

So why does he say things which are plain wrong? If he has nothing to hide then it's simply bad politics, it would be bolder to express a view and cope with the consequences. So maybe he is just rubbish at politics.

Or is it that he has something to hide, and we would all want to know what deal had been done for GB to agree with the SNP's release policy. Or would he be exposed if he disagreed with the judgement as being duplicitous? Maybe he is frit. So much for the author of 'Courage'.

Squiffy.