Gordon Brown

[Higgledyhouse]

I'm just watching a re-run of Gordon Brown on Piers Morgan from the time he was PM. Now I'm not a particularly political person but I always liked Gordon Brown, I mean the person he is and watching this again tonight has made me sad that we lost him as our leader...... Sarah Brown too, just really nice people. Anyone else feel the same?

It's not the size of the debt, it's your ability to service it that counts. Whoops. The market's doubting that, too, hence the downgrade in our credit rating

And that's it in a nutshell. That's why right now Japan is still plodding along and so too will the US (assuming they dont commit economic suicide in two days and take us with them as collateral damage).

But confidence and underlying economic performance and overall debt levels are linked. If we're doing shite and owe lots of money then the confidence isn't there.

But it's all about confidence nowadays. Because money simply doesn't really exist anymore. It's just all bits & bytes on a computer.

*ProfondoRosso LessMissAbs, with respect, I find that quite offensive. Have you ever done a PhD? I'm doing one right now, and have nearly finished it. It's bloody hard work. GB would not have been able to write his thesis without extensive research and fieldwork on how the Labour Party operates and has operated, because without acknowledging the past we go into the future blind. How do you know he didn't travel or study abroad? A doctorate, contrary to what some may think, does not allow you the time to fanny about, doing whatever you please. If your funding will allow you to study abroad. If not, then you're going to have to pay for that yourself and make sure your university will even allow you to do so. I've been funded for research trips to the USA and to speak at conferences. The funding covers your travel and the most basic accommodation. You are not on a jolly.

You tend not to do PhDs in the professions. Yes, Gordon Brown got a PhD whoopee and took 10 years to do. Research into the history of the Labour Party in Scotland is hardly ground breaking work that is going to save lives or change the world. I don't actually agree that that sort of PhD is worth funding at all - equally, he could have worked and written an academic text on exactly the same subject. He was just looking for a reason to stay at university for a sum total of 14 years.

You seem to ignore the many students who do manage to study abroad to broaden their minds, who do work to fund their studies and who are far more brilliant than Gordon Brown can only dream of. So you will excuse my failure to be impressed by both his PHd choice of subject and his subsequent limited record of employment prior to entering politics. I know far more talented people who actually do worthwhile jobs, and Gordon Brown simply does not compare. He doesn't compare to me for example to a cancer research scientist or a doctor or an industrial chemist, or a brilliant lawyer or excellent economist.

He was an eternal bachelor until realising that a PM needed a respectable wife, suddenly got married

Do you honestly think Sarah Brown is stupid? A trophy wife?

She's certainly no trophy wife.

Gordon Brown strikes me as having a few minor traits on the sociopathic scale, with a certain element of personal charm that may be switched on and off to suit, who would do anything to achieve his political ambitions. Thankfully for the UK, this appears to have been achieved now and he is now inflicting his particular mix of "talents" on the after dinner speaking circuit.

LessMissAbs - plenty of people in the professions have PhDs. Plenty of people in politics.

I would have loved to study abroad. I couldn't afford it. Most people can't without scholarships to fund it in addition to their basic stipend.

May I ask again: do you have a PhD? Because, if not, I would ask you not to espouse ill-informed ideas on what is and is not worth funding in academia, what doctoral work should entail and how long it should take to research, write and defend a thesis.

Speaking as someone who is nearing the end of writing a 100,000 word thesis in French and wouldn't dream of presuming to know how to do someone else's job.

That's why right now Japan is still plodding along and so too will the US

Japan has been suffering under austerity since the early 90s. As for the US, once China has enough gold they'll cut the dollar loose and destroy the Petrodollar. As long as their citizens have followed instructions to buy gold they'll be fine. Search Jan Skoyles to see what she says on this. Or read it on realasset.co.uk. It's most interesting and a little worrying that the majority of the media is ignoring this as it will affect us all.

Or check what Alasdair Macleod has to say about how the BofE is selling gold cheap on the quiet. Or Andrew Maguire on how the price of precious metals are being manipulated by central banks and The Banksters, who are a criminal cartel. Or Stacy Herbert on how 5000 oz of gold futures was released to the market at once, dropping the price by $25 per oz. That's virtual gold. That's right, they're doing to gold what they're doing for money: printing it.

The difference between gold and paper money is of course you can't hypothecate and re-hypothecate gold forever, unlike fiat money. Eventually you have to back it up with actual gold. Which China is buying at an artificially low price, all due to the fraud of the central banks leasing gold to merchants who then sold the metal on.

A little research will show I'm right and the neoliberal agenda is the wrong way forward. And before you slag me off as being 'ultra left' bear in mind I'm more of a capitalist than you. I just don't believe the rich should be bailed out.

ProfondoRosso practitioners in my profession do not tend to do pHDs because they are too busy practising their profession. In fact, a PhD would be considered a negative unless the student were making an academic career, because it would imply that they lacked the ability to practice. This is relatively standard in the traditional professions.

As a taxpayer, voter and person with common sense, I feel perfectly entitled to state that a PhD on the History of the Labour Party in Scotland taking 10 years to complete is a waste of time, except to further personal political ambitions. I don't think its something that the State should support or finance. Its not as if it even resulted in a well regarded textbook.

As I said previously, if he really was interested enough in the history of the Labour Party in Scotland to spend 10 years studying it at the expense of the taxpayer, I am sure he could also have produced a leading text or two on the subject, whilst holding down a paying job.

Furthermore, the former PM's career is in the public domain I do also feel justified in stating that Gordon Brown's employment record, prior to entering politics, was limited and unimpressive. Funnily enough, it is heavily glossed over in most bios of him.

What would impress me is a good degree from a good university in a good subject (not necessarily a professional subject but the preponderance of Arts subjects isn't a good representation), a good further degree with stints abroad at least, on the Erasmus programme if the student for some reason is unable to bring themselves to pay the cheaper fees in our neighbouring European countries, a good employment record at a reasonably high level, progressing from junior employee to that level without benefitting from familial connections, and/or a history of running their own business. Additional achievements in sport (like Menzies Campbell, Seb Coe), or all rounded interesting personality are a bonus.

Is that clear? Gordon Brown doesn't really meet the requirements I see that would make a good PM, and its borne out in his rather dismal record in office.

Your lack of knowledge about how academia works, and the options available to postgraduate students (to whom Erasmus isn't open) befuddles me.

Frankly, it's insulting to presume knowledge of a field you know nothing about.

None of us will think he was so nice when we see the effect his raid had on our pensions... Most people arent even aware of what he did. I loathe the man for it

And isn't a PhD supposed to be innovative in its field and to research something previously undiscovered or unsaid? Correct if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that there is plenty written on the history of the Labour party in Scotland, and that Brown's PhD wouldn't have been funded now? And certainly not for the 10 years that it took for GB to cut his teeth on pursuing his Union President aims at Edinburgh University (a bit like Jim Murphy who bucked the trend at Strathclyde by failing to graduate at all in the decade he studied there).

Its just another political elite, with opportunities most of us can only dream about.

Doing fuck all representing his constituency, barely in Westminster.

He is a crap MP, spends more time abroad instead of doing the job he is elected to do and getting paid for.

Profundo Erasmus wasn't available when GB was an undergraduate either. Don't put words in my mouth. You are being disingenuous and your lack of attention to detail in someone who claims to be an academic by study alone is embarrassing.

Scotland has a proud history of sending students to continental universities to study, and has links with Leiden, Ghent, Brugge and Utrecht in particular, and GB studied at a time when full maintenance grants were available, never mind not having to pay tuition fees.

To suggest that GB was unable to complete both a varied education and a good experience of work because of lack of opportunity or funding is quite frankly ridiculous. The PhD was more about his obsession with being elected President of Edinburgh University Student's Union.

Treating people who don't agree with you as being stupid rarely succeeds.

A PhD is a job. It is work. Being in a doctoral programme does not render you 'unemployed.' Many people's jobs aren't traditionally vital or useful, and a hell of a lot of 'professional' people work fewer hours than your average doctoral candidate.

I don't see how studying an Arts subject (like a modern foreign language?) is inferior to being a sportsman.

Profundo Frankly, it's insulting to presume knowledge of a field you know nothing about

Since when did a PhD become a "field"?

Or do you mean the history of the Labour Party in Scotland? Are you suggesting that no-one but you and Gordon Brown share an understanding of a subject which forms a major part of the curriculum in Scottish schools?

Perhaps, since GB's PhD subject is so widely understood, he should have chosen a more innovative one?

The man simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. His "achievement" in becoming pm is an indictment of how it has become possible in this country to achieve high office with very little talent or achievement.

Academia is a field, not a PhD.

And what does 'academic by study alone' mean?

It would be helpful Profundo, if you could remember what you are discussing. Academia isn't a "field" unless you are employed in it. Academia in itself isn't a field of study. So far you have done nothing to suggest that you are employed in academia beyond your PhD studies, and you have told someone who is, following successful professional practice, that they know nothing about how it works.

a hell of a lot of 'professional' people work fewer hours than your average doctoral candidate

I think you'll find that a hell of a lot of professional people also run businesses in order to practice, and therefore also have experience beyond their "field" which the average politician lacks. Sadly the success of GB probably puts them off going into politics.

I don't see how studying an Arts subject (like a modern foreign language?) is inferior to being a sportsman

I have no idea. What is it you are tying to say now?

I would have thought that the study of linguistics, as opposed to the study of literature of a language that has already been critiqued to death, would attract more funding by decent universities because it is more innovative and worthy of higher level study. I'm not suggesting that the Arts shouldn't be funded, but since there is a lack of good engineers being produced in this country, perhaps that's where more resources should be concentrated.

Its generally considered that candidates for good jobs be well rounded people, with genuine talent, ability and qualifications, and interests and success outwith their immediate field in the past. Candidates spend time making sure they tick these boxes. Why this shouldn't apply to British politicians, I do not know, but there is surely a PhD in studying whether there is a correlation between numbers of low achieving MPs and the present poor performance of the UK economy and appalling standards of UK equality and education, compared to its near European neighbours.

Academia is my field. If you're a researcher whose work contributes to a department's research output, you're as good as employed, whether you're funded or not. My mortgage form says 'occupation: university researcher.' I teach in my department (and in several others). I get paid for this.

I consider myself to be as much a professional in what I do as you do in your practice.

I heard him speak at a conference once, before he became PM and yes he seemed like a really decent man. Would be a great dinner party guest.

Profondo I view the professions and professionals in the traditional way, as having a vocational degree, and being admitted to a profession by its governing body, which also has the power to strike them off. If GB had used his Arts degree to become a teacher, I would respect him more.

In the 18 years after GB left school, he had only a few brief months working full time, and that was as a journalist (a field he wasn't trained for) for Scottish Television. His work at the Glasgow Institute of Technology as a lecturer in Social Policy was on a part-time, ad hoc basis.

When compared to some other European leaders - Angela Merkel was originally a physical chemist, Margaret Thatcher was an industrial chemist, Tony Blair was a lawyer, Mark Rutte (Dutch PM) had a career working in management for companies like Unilever and Calve, Elio Di Rupo (Belgian PM) was a chemist (incidentally studied at Leeds as part of his PhD), Barack Obama was a lawyer...

Lets not forget that GB was a student at a time when there was less competition to get into university, and where it was relatively easy to stay there on public funds as long as you could eke it out. He has never had to develop managerial skills, or business knowledge, or knowledge about how financial markets work.

; semi-colon before Barack Obama!

I have never met either Mr or Mrs Brown and therefore cannot reasonably comment on them ragrding character etc.

I could however make many comments about GB as Chancelloer and PM and what I believe to have been the massive distraction to the governance of this country, caused by the adolescent 'feud he conducted with Tony Blair.

Regarding his supposed lack of repsonibility in any way for the Global financial crisis : I would ask his apologists if they have read 'When genius failed' by Roger Lowenstein ?

This book chronicles the rise and fall of a hedge fund called LongTerm Capital Management created by an ex-Salomon Brothers Head Trader. John Meriwether. This was back in 1998 and LTCM's failure was due to the unrestricted trading of derivatives, including mortgage-backed securities, which nearly brought the financial system to its knees. It was an ominous portent of the situation the financial system faced roughly 10 years , albeit that the current problems are much more global in nature and therefore much more widespread and dangerous.

Unbelievably, no action was taken ten years ago to re-regulate this trading activity . In the run-up to the current crisis, this lack of regulation combined with clever financial engineering, using offshore Special Investment Vehicles, contrived to keep the liabilities involved off the various Bank’s Balance Sheets and therefore off the capital adequacy radar.

Ironically in the US, the political failure to deal with the problems over a decade ago rests with the Clinton administration rather than GWB’s……………….but I am afraid perceptions did not do John McCain much good., when he ran against Brack Obama................

However in the UK the recent Labour government was in power, and who was the UK’s Chief Financial Officer (Chancellor of the Exchequer) in 1998 ?…….................answers on a postcard !

I had a soft spot for Gordon Brown too. I think a lot of the flak he got as PM was anti-Scottish bias from a London-based media to be honest. People just couldn't handle the idea that a PM of the UK had a noticeably non-English accent. His cerebral demeanour didn't help things, it made him seem cold and unfeeling.

At least he was honest enough to BE Scottish unlike that worm Tony Blair who just completely cast off his Scottish identity, complete 'fake it till you make it' tosser.

OK he was no saint, (and who is?) but I feel he did have values I'd support and had great integrity. I was gutted when they left Downing Street too as I honestly felt that it was mainly the constant media opposition to him which had made it impossible to continue. I wish that that general election had been called right after he took over so he could have managed the critics better and been judged on his performance in the long term.

I appreciated his level headedness during the early crisis days of the financial meltdown and how he was a global player whereas I can imagine that the current lot would have been flailing. I am really scared about what this government of self serving rich boys are doing to the country and to people's attitudes. I find it incredible that they are still trying to blame their predecessors for how things are now. Ed Miliband just seems so unconvincing as a leader though. Can't they put in Yvette Cooper?

I find GB's narrow field of study interesting. And depressingly unsurprising.

He really is a man of narrow scope and breath takingly poor imagination.

This is a fabulous attribute in many spheres of life. Politics? Not so much.

Parttime you are surprised the coalition are blaming their predecessors? When GB was still blaming the previous Tory government 10/11/12 years after they left power!

GB could have called an election when he first became PM, he chose not to because he knew he would lose and he was desperate for his 'turn'.

Yvette Cooper? Haha, you really think people would vote for her? Not a chance, because if there is one man who people dislike even more than GB, it is Ed Balls and if his wife was PM then we would never get rid of him.

Parttimelover whilst I can that YC looks a better bet than Milliband, I do think they both (all that gang in fact) suffer from the same issues as GB; they've never done anyhting except politics, and high end politics at that!

They've never served as a local MP properly.

YC was catapulted into one of the safest seats in the UK, to which she has no ties or afinity. She did this and concentrated on her Westminster work.

She hasn't slogged it out at grass roots. She hasn't spent time serving the people she claims to represent.

I think MPs should have to do some tidy politicking before they elbow their way into the big time, rather than jump from studies to a researcher post for an MP. Then catapult into a safe seat. It doesn't make for good undertsanding of anyhting other than the Westminster village!

Absolutely agree wordfactory.