Today's Brownies

Richard Jenkins

No doubt John Humphries would like to think otherwise, but the only question that he missed out in his interview with Brown today was “have you anything else you would like to say to the Nation, Prime Minister?” Humphries allowed Brown to drone on and on as if in a party political broadcast. The contrast with Humphries’ interview with David Cameron yesterday was stunning. Then Humphries was in attack dog mode (or as he no doubt thinks of himself, Grand Inquisitor) and continually interrupted Cameron, sometimes even before Cameron had actually started his answer.

Mike

Compare & contrast
1) Humph interviews Cameron - grills him, constantly interrupts and seeks headlines about Cameron failing re "Punch n Judy" politics
2) Hump interviews Brown - soft soaps him, allows him to make amazing unchallenged assertions that any half-decent jouno could and should have challenged (e.g. abolition of the 10p rate because the benefits where going to the undeserving rich. Er, who introduced it (Brown) and where do the benefits of cutting the basic rate from 22p to 20p go (the rich), and the costs (the poor). Laughable
The BBC has really excelled on this one! Why not just call the Brown interview a party election broadcast supported by the BBC

Chuck Unsworth

I was appalled that Humphrys repeatedly failed to pick Brown up on many of these wild assertions. I can't make up my mind as to whether he was having a bad day today or a bad day when he 'interviewed' Cameron. The bald statement that the nation's ills were attributable to America was crass and completely obviously untrue - yet Humphrys simply let it pass. Then there was Brown's blathering about off-balance-sheet accounting, and Humphrys - by accident or design - failed to take this up when Brown burbled on about the 'right decisions' over Northern Crock.

Is he losing his edge or something? When is Humphrys due to retire?

Oscar Miller

Are we being served? - Not by Gordon Brown (as he simperingly said was such a privilege at the end of his party political broadcast - oops sorry - interview with John Humphrys) and not by John Humphrys who has now destroyed his reputation as an attack dog. Calling him Brown's poodle would be unfair to poodles.

Fergus Pickering

Yes I have to agree. Come on Humphrys, what made you such a little toady today when you had those big, bad teeth yesterday. Someone threatening your pension? Mind you, Broon still sounded dire.

richard jacobs

typical BBC - its taxpayer's money that pays them both!

Jennie

On the other hand, when Brown is allowed to come out with so many blatant lies, this just reinforces in listeners' minds how little credibility he has left. Even someone with no interest in current affairs can tell the difference between what's happening in the real economy and what Brown is saying. No-one believes what he says any more.

Indeed, Brown doesn't even look and sound as though he himself believes what he is saying! He looks and sounds shifty. And that sends a powerful message even those who don't really understand the issues.

Pedant

Seized up surely.

salieri

I have discovered that G Brown does have one talent after all: the ability to reduce mild-mannered people having breakfast to shouting and swearing at their radio sets in incoherent,impotent rage. Before the mendacious rows of figures even begin to tumble out of his mouth, the mere sound of his smug and pachydermouos self-regard is enough to make one thrown up.

Oscar Miller

Salieri - that is one response. I suspect many are simply sent to sleep by the sound of Brown droning on. Maybe that's what happened to Humphrys. Drifted off during the monotone delivery of all those damned lies and statistics.

Vimeiro

I liked the part about 'Off balance sheet financing'.

Pity Brown was not confronted regarding his PFI financing.

Cassius

Did you note that in 'fessing up (doubtless just for softening up the voters) to "two mistakes", Brown went into the plural "we". Of course when he's taking credit for anything, it is always "I".

Wilfred

No, posters, Humphrys did not give Brown an easy ride. He tried to attack him on every recent issue. That the issues Humphrys chose (such as the 10p rate or the prisoners' pay rise) are in fact non-issues was not Brown's fault. The fact is that Brown (pace Fraser's comment) actually did a very good interview, easily dealing with everything Humphrys tried to bring up. If Humphrys was so sure of his statistics over the tax issue, he should have stood his ground. They were clearly both talking about the personal tax burden, and Humphrys simply could not defend his allegation.

Perry

Agreed.

There should have been a formal announcement before the ‘Interview’ (sic), - thus . . .

“There now follows a party political broadcast on behalf of Noo-Lie-Bore . . . . “

[Afterthoughts :

(1) is it possible that the ageing JH has become retro to the extent that he adopted a 1950’s obsequiousness to his betters, - or
(2) is he looking for his knighthood? ]

Thomas Widmann

The sterling collapse is indeed enormous, and it seems to be strongly correlated with Brown's premiership.
I blogged it recently.

petuniabean

Gordon:

"Now John, do be fair and just take a look,
At all of the previous sums that I took,
At the state of the health
Of my wealth made by stealth,
Then judge for yourself my
gobbledygook."

Broon Watcher

Here's another one in yesterday's Daily Mirror:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/04/29/vote-for-equality-freedom-and-hope-89520-20398497/

"I'm the first to say we've got more to do to tackle crime, strengthen our borders and show hard-working families we're on their side."

The *FIRST* to say? Er...these Brownies just keep coming don't they?

Martin

"That Gordon Brown... didn't he used to be something, once?"

"No, it was all a delusion."

YarnesfromHorsham

Yep JH is after a big "K" How could so much blather go uncorrected/unchallenged - trouble is Gordon believes it all.

Fred Wilkins

John Humphrys showed himself to be an obsequious little creep. The contrast between yesterday, when he wouldn't let David Cameron answer a question and repeated the same question over and over again, with today, when he sat is respectful silence and allowed Gordon Brown to set the agenda and drone on interrupted, was shocking.
The BBC's political coverage is now on a par with that of Zimbabwe.

Ian C

You have to contrast interviews with Brown (and Humphrys was so gentle on him) with the equivalent done by Thatcher and her succesors. You can remember her (they were very rare) on the radio and Blair - they both had a means of sounding postive, although in very different ways. Major and Brown were/are nondescript, un-memorable and full of waffle. Major came across as a decent over-promoted sort of guy, Brown is a bore, pure and simple. As such he is totally un-reelectable without an economy doing so well it is gliding.

HJ

Can 'Wilfred' please explain to all us lesser mortals why the doubling of the 10p rate with no compensatory rise in personal allowances "is, in fact, a non-issue", especially for the lower paid?

Graham Doll

He also lied about extended GPs' opening hours. The DoH scheme has not even been finalised yet and there are virtually no practices offering evening opening. Moreover many will not, due to inflexibility and bureaucracy (eg. monthly returns of all patients seen, broken down by age/sex/ethnicity).

Wilfred

HJ - 10p is a non-issue because (a) the big picture is that Brown has done a massive amount for the low paid (tax credits, minimum wage) AND the middle classes (20% income tax, 18% capital gains tax) over 11 years (b) it's a joke for Tories to suddenly pretend to be on the side of the lower paid, and (c) 10p was an error (admitted by Brown) which is being corrected.

Wilfred

HJ - I forgot. Another reason to get rid of the 10p rate is that it benefited millionaires as well as the poor, so it was wasteful. Much better to target scarce resources at the poor alone.

Andrew

Nicky Campbell did a nice interview on 5Live

He asked an opener on what was Gordon's first thought in the morning. GB droned on wiht the usual statistics. Nicky then said that Blair would have said his first thought was a cup of coffee, and that it proved Brown doesn't have the human touch.

Nice

John

Wilfred, what utter fertiliser. Humphries allowed MacBean to come out with lie after lie without challenging him. With Cameron, he kept interrupting him in the most appalling and unprofessional way possible.

This is blatant BBC electioneering for MacLabour, and surely cannot possibly be legal.

John

Ian, MacBean is not only a bore, which is not a crime, but an incompetent idiot who trots out lies every time he opens his mouth.

Randy Splatworthy

It would be a complete waste of time bothering with BBC coverage of the elections. They'll just have a rerun the last local elections when they kept insisting that Labour losing 40% of their Councillors was a disaster for the Tories.

John of Enfield

"I have discovered that G Brown does have one talent after all: the ability to reduce mild-mannered people having breakfast to shouting and swearing at their radio sets in incoherent,impotent rage. Before the mendacious rows of figures even begin to tumble out of his mouth, the mere sound of his smug and pachydermouos self-regard is enough to make one thrown up."

Thank God some one else is reacting to him in the same way. I thought it was just me!!! Gordon "Spreadsheet" Brown! But I don't think my rage is entirely impotent - I do have 3 votes in London on Thursday @ 07:00 hrs.

Martin

It is too late to improve the corrupt BBC News - so scrap it.

Wilfred

There's one fact that John and other complainers about that interview are forgetting. For the last several months, Humphrys has been making mincemeat of Labour ministers with impunity. Only a few days ago you guys were rejoicing at how JH had wiped the floor with Des Browne. Just because Brown can't be bullied by JH doesn't suddenly make JH pro-Labour. As if! As for Cameron's policy-lite interview, it's about time he was given as rough a ride as the real politicians have been given these last few months.

John Citizen

Wilfred
If you really believe that the 10ptax rate tax is not important you are deluded
Even the mendacious Broon has had to apologise another Labour disaster

Wilfred

John Citizen, see my replies to "HJ" above.

MGB

Yeah I agree with Andrew 1.10pm, Campbell's dig that Brown was out of touch with the average man would have hurt Brown. And Campbell did not stop there, he challenged him throughout and did not let him get into “reading out the latest tractor production figures” mode. Well done 5, pity about the normally incisive 4. Perhaps the no.10 spinners gave the beeb the squeeze to go easy on our supreme leader?

David

Not sure where you get your tax figures - according to the OECD:
http://www.oecd.org/document/58/0,3343,en_2649_34533_39498298_1_1_1_1,00.html
and
http://www.finfacts.ie/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10007581.shtml
and
http://www.oecd.org/document/11/0,2340,fr_2649_201185_37504715_1_1_1_1,00.html

The UK is nowhere near 40% and is still below average both for the OECD and the EU.

David Parker

Humphrys is far from incompetent, so his totally inadequate and obsequious performance this morning was clearly more than just an "off day". From the way in which he so blatantly fudged the interview, when he has the necessary ability to have done so much more subtly, suggests that Humphrys was being heavily leant upon from on high, and himself resented this. Hence he may have been doing exactly as he was told and wished to make this obvious to everyone.

Ted Tedford

Wilfred: I can't help thinking you are being too casual about the 10p tax thing.

To say that 'it's being corrected' is to miss the point somewhat; to point out 'the big picture' looks a bit desperate; and to wail on the Tories is irrelevant.

This wasn't a potentially brilliant idea in the best traditions of Labour to help the poor that had sadly unintended and unforeseeable consequences. It was a cynical attempt to wrong-foot the Tories, and achieve a few positive headlines in his last budget as chancellor. The second- and third-order effects were predictable, and predicted, and still he sent his hacks out to deny there were problems.

And this is from a man who claims, with a straight, if somewhat flaccid, face, to be taking the hard decisions for Britain's long-term stability.

And for what it's worth, I do *not* think that introduing tax credits is doing a 'massive amount' for me. I'd rather The State took less in the first place, 10p rate or no 10p rate, and trusted me to decide how I spend it.

Wilfred

MGB and Andrew (and others in a similar vein): your obsession with personal Brown trivia such as coffee, personal tics and "tractor production figures" mirrors Cameron's increasingly shallow performances in PMQs: always avoiding the substantive issues. It may be a mantra from Brown, but mantras have a way of getting through to the public, especially if based on reality. Calling Cameron a "shallow salesman" - now THAT's how to end Punch and Judy politics.

Wilfred

There you are, Ted, you don't really care about the lower paid or you wouldn't call for lower taxes all round and mock tax credits. So why bang on about the 10p rate, as if you cared? Your income tax and capital gains tax are at a historic low. Trouser the gains by all means, but please stop pretending that you haven't received them.

Herbie

I am sure that for Mr Nelson and most of the people who have commented it was all so predictable, long before the broadcasts, what would be the differences in tone and manner of the John Humphry's interviews with Cameron and Brown. It has been said before that Humphrys is an obsequious, ill-educated, little creep.

Had the interviews been conducted by James Naughtie the results would have been similar. Andrew Mar on his AM show has the same technique as the other two. When asking a question of a politician-let the New Labour minister waffle ad infinitem whist never answering the question but as soon as a Conservative shadow minister starts to answer interrupt him constantly.

For years it's been said by many people and it is truly scandalous just how blatantly biased a large coterie of BBC political interviewers are. The sad fact is there is absolutely nothing any of us can do about it.

Ian C

John, My point is that he can be incompetent, corrupt, dead, for all we know - but he will bore himself from office as the public will never warm to a boring policy wonk nerd who does not (let alone cannot) communicate. We can throw all the darts we like concerning what he has done, level of comptence etc. but at the end of the day if he bores he's finished. So he's finished. We just need to end it sooner than May 2010 because he's an incompetent, liar etc.

Wilfred

But Herbie, the Today interviewers have been notable in the last few months for ripping into Labour ministers. Where have you been? The point is that they've started, at last, on Cameron. You didn't think JH was an "an obsequious, ill-educated, little creep" (so many personal insults in the Coffee House!) when he wiped the floor with Des Browne a week or so ago.

Ted Tedford

Wilfred: I didn't say I *did* care about the lower paid, which is anyway irrelevant to my point, which is that I think the 10p tax issue is more significant than you suggest.

But if I *were* one of this peculiar and ill-defined band, I suspect I'd want The State to take less of my money in the first place than to be turned into a State client by asking for the same amount back.

As it is I'm pretty rich, with a very easy job, which is how I can spend all afternoon meandering through rabbit-holes on Coffee House.

Herbie

Wilfred, Des Browne is the part-time Defence Minister with no defence for the Government's attiude to our servicemen

Talia

Could anyone who knows tell me the day of the Five Live interview by Campbell? I’d like to listen to it.

Fraser Nelson

David - that's the 05 data and its incomplete. I will do a full brownie on this in a bit - but for now look at Annex 26 from this Excel file. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/51/2483816.xls

Lance Diatessaron

Wilfred: I agree. There is too much personal abuse in the Coffee House.

Gardener

Talia - the Campbell interview was on 5Live at about 7.50 this morning (Weds)

Talia

Kinda wish I hadn’t asked. Feel seriously sick now. You can HEAR every time he does that mouth thing.

Fraser Nelson

At the risk of getting as much of a kicking as I got for my PMQs thing, I had no complaints about Humphrys. If he had dragged Brown into a statistics battle, he'd have lost what remaining audience he had. I agree with salieri and John - no one takes these figures in anyway. JH scoffed at GB's comment that he had opened clean hospitals ("you've done nothing of the sort"). I think JH is one of the very best interviewers there is, and was about as fair as it is possible to be with a serving Prime Minister. Brown's little lies speak for themselves.

Fergus Pickering

Wilfred, Broon got rid of the 10p rate i order to cut the 22p rate to 20p. Right. You say the 10p rate benefits the rich as well as the poor. Right. And the cut from 22p to 20p, does that benefit only the poor? Have I missed something? The reason, in my opinion, that Broon is so keen on tax credits (hand-outs) to the poor is that it keeps them beholden to him and voting for him. Isn't that the reason? What Broon wants, what all you Socialists want, is clients. Basically you pay them so that they will vote for you. Or youlet them bring in their friends and relations from other countries sothat they will vote for you. Or you...But you get my drift. Isn't that how it works? Explain to me where I have gone wrong. I, by the way, am not a rich man.

MGB

Wilfred
April 30th, 2008 3:45pm

Let's see tomorrow what the working public thinks about Brown's "mantra": Having tea with Thatcher/British jobs4/deep cleaning... I could go on with the shallow ex Red Flag waving u turning Brown “deep and meaningful statements”.

I think you miss the point, no one in this country voted for Brown as PM.

Wilfred

Just a quick comment on Fraser's original article: "Food prices have nothing to do with America." But I thought it WAS something to do with reassigning arable land for bio-fuels, which is largely an American issue, as well as demand from China and India. All right, Brown failed to mention those countries, but there's a danger in being too pedantic in the desire to paint Brown as a complete liar (by the way, when did "liar" and "mendacious" become acceptable words to use when conducting a rational argument about politics?) The point is, food price inflation has an international dimension, and was not "caused by" the Labour government, any more than was the recent (welcome, for first-time buyers) halt in house price inflation.

Silent Hunter

Welfed:

So tell me?

Why is it a good thing to take money from the poor in tax and then require them to apply for it all back as a state handout?

Why not simply raise the tax threshold to take those on sub £14K incomes out of tax altogether; then tax the non doms and close the tax loop holes for the rich farkers in the City?

Or does all the additional bureaucracy required for Tax Credits actually give YOU a job?

I'm sure it couldn't have anything to do with a cynical New Labour weaze of knowing that the mass of paperwork required to get money back from the government is usually too daunting for the average punter who gives up; BINGO! the government get to keep money to which they're not entitled.

The more honest amongst us would see that as Sleaze & Corruption.
Something New Labour borrowed from the Tories in 1997 and then elevated to an artform.

Wilfred

Silent Hunter, I would like to reply, but the Coffee House censor deleted my post because I mentioned L*rd A*hcro*t as not being the best choice to close down the tax loopholes. Sorry.

mart

Wilfred: I'm sympathetic to your concern over language. "Liar" and "mendacious" are strong words, but can be reasonable words to use, if the circumstances warrant it. So I would agree with the proposition that the use of such words is a sad thing. But what's the alternative? Please propose what words would better convey correct meaning in the context they were used. Thanks.

Michael Davies

The OECD data for 2007 show UK tax and non tax receipts at 41.7% GDP, but more importantly, spending at 44.6% - the difference being merely delayed taxation in the form of debt. But the Treasury has managed to produce a graph that makes Brown's statement pedantically defendable, if deeply misleading (see its Public Finances Databank chart C2 in http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/3/2/psfd_210408.xls

See some more detail on this and other aspect of Gordon Brown's strange personality at: http://brown-out.blogspot.com

Wilfred

Hang on a sec, Michael Davies, you're talking about tax and NON-TAX revenues at 41.7% GDP. Humphrys and Brown were talking about tax only. You acknowledge there's a Treasury chart showing that tax is around 37% of GDP. How exactly does that make Brown a "liar", when he bases his words on Treasury statistics? Or you're calling the whole Treasury liars? Your argument is weakened further by the gratuitous bit of psycho-babble against Brown's personality at the end.

Fraser Nelson

Wilfred, please come by CoffeeHouse more often. This is a superb thread. The OECD has this category "tax and non-tax revenues" to stop governments defining mandatory income as "non-tax" - ie TV license, driving licence fees, harbour fees, passport fees etc.

In Jan06 the ONS said that the TV license should in fact be considered a tax but the Treasury disagrees in its OECD submissions. Which is why I believe Annex26 of its biannual World Economic Outlook is the best metric to use for the tax burden

Michael Davies

Wilfred, I was really drawing attention to how slippy he was because it becomes an academic debate about what is and isn't formally defined as 'tax', rather than how much money the state draws from the economy.

If you look at the chart on my blog, you'll see a strong rising trend and a larger state than any time in 20 years. I was the one to point out that Brown's statement has a basis in Treasury numbers and that the OECD numbers have a non-tax element, so don't feel *too* badly deceived, by me at least! I just think there is a way of telling the truth and a way of telling the whole truth.

And as for psycho-babble - well, just scrutinise his personality and much about the origin of his troubles becomes clear - see http://brown-out.blogspot.com

Wilfred

Thanks for the invitation, Fraser, it's been fun. You may not believe this, but I buy the Spectator every week (along with the New Statesman, of course). Cheers.

HJ

Wilfred,

The 20p (as opposed to 22p) rate benefits the best paid more than it does the poor. The poor benefitted proportionately more from the 10p rate (and they would benefit even more proportionately if personal allowance were raised instead).

Brown has not done an enormous amount for the worst paid and the middle classes - you mention income tax rates but forget NI increases (which amount to the same thing). Allowances haven't been raised in line with earnings and many don't get tax credits. Do two adults working on £15k with a child qualify for tax credits? Income tax is levied on individual income, whereas tax credits are based on household income, so many will lose out. Even where people qualify for tax credits, the combined effect of income tax, NI and withdrawal of tax credits means that many of the worst paid suffer effective marginal tax rates of over 70%.

You say that '10p' was an error admitted by Brown that is 'being corrected'. In what way is it being corrected? He has used the £7bn it raised to fund the reduction from 22p to 20p. He is running a huge budget deficit so he hasn't the money to compensate the losers, bar a few bits of sticking plaster.

HJ

Wilfred,

It is fair to describe Brown as mendacious. Let me remind you of one very obvious example. Brown claimed that the CBI had been in favour - in fact had positively urged - his tax on pension funds. The CBI then produced incontrovertible evidence that this wasn't true.

Ian OLIVE

Gordon Brown routinely lies like the stinking fish he is. If he did this in a business context he would have been barred from office by now.

Wilfred

Thank you, Ian OLIVE, for raising the tone of this thread. Since you insist on using the "lying" smear, don't you think Cameron was lying when he rode his bike with a limousine behind? Visually lying? You need to grow up about politics. ALL politicians have to garnish the truth and present facts in the most advantageous way. You yourself have done it in your post. It's part of the job description.

Lance Diatessaron

Wilfred: I admire your single-minded determination to highlight the pointless abuse on these threads. But the fact that "they all do it" should not dissuade us from pointing out untruths when we see them; nor does it mean it is infantile to hold our public servants to a higher standard than they appear to think appropriate.

p.s. If you don't like to witness spiteful personal abuse, may I attempt to protect your sensibilities by recommending that you don't follow Fraser's link to the Guardian's hilariously spiteful denunciation of Boris Johnson!

Michael Davies

The simple explanation for the 10p tax abolition is that is was the necessary but partially buried counterpart to the a 20p basic rate stunt pulled by Brown in the last three lines of the Budget speech, designed to knock Cameron off balance as he made his response. And it worked - for about 10 minutes.
Seedy brawling, low politics, and narrow calculation were the real drivers. The stunt was the big thing - and everything else was organised around that.

Does anyone seriously think Brown would reverse one of his own policies on a mere matter of principle or because it wasn't working? No, at the time he desperately needed to show his party that he could better Cameron in hand-to-hand combat in the Commons. Of course, being the bully and coward he undoubtedly is, he choose the most extreme one-sided opportunity to do it - the Budget (prepared by an army of clerks and pointy heads over several months) and the Opposition response (made up there and then). Even with that advantage, he managed to separate the 10p announcement from the 20p announcement with over 400 words, and bury it in a coma-inducing section on tax credits.

Think about Brown's vanity, his leaden performances in debate, and his desperation to be leader and the 10p / 20p tax gambit looks easier to explain than a carefully constructed thoroughly principled redistributive measure.

Sidney Arbourbridge

I think that Wilfred's assertion about the 10p tax is a non-issue is close to the truth, but only because there are bigger issues of the current PM's making. Pensions for instance. Were I to be mad enough to become I'd bang on about it all day every day. It's beyond me that the same chap who started taxing the income on pension funds to the tune of around £5bn per year, whose own pension (due to being a member of the ever dwindling final salary club) was completely unaffected of course, can then start squawking that there's a pensions black hole and I am not saving enough towards my twilight years, is beyond me. I'd be on it every day. And please don't tell me it's for improved public services because there haven't been any improvements, they just cost more now.

John

Lance, I'd call it borderline-libellous gutter press, almost Stuermer-like in its blatant lying, rather than 'hilarious'.

Lance Diatessaron

John: 'Hilarious' in the sense that it exposes the points you correctly identify while trying to dress it up as journalism.

There's more unintentional hilarity on view on the Guardian's Comment is Free site: a blog entry by Andrew Keen bemoaning the rise of the Blogosphere at the expense of 'proper', 'expert' journalism. Reading this Guardian effort should help Mr Keen understand why British journalism is held in such contempt.

John

I knew what you meant, Lance ;-)

David

Fraser,

Thanks for the explanation, but referring to the small print instead of the OECD's own headline figures seems a little like massaging. I guess in these days of webTV and cheap PCs the license fee may be becoming less and less mandatory, but is that really the only difference between 38% and over 40%?

In any case, the UK tax burden is still far below the average for comparable countries, whether OECD or EU. Taking that into account, an increase in public spending just ahead of recession does not seem so bad, as it will help to stimulate the economy through global rising fuel and food prices.

Very Keynesian of me I know, but even The Economist doesn't believe in trickle down from tax cuts and supports financial stimulation packages that kick in early.

The UK's problems seem more long term and structural: low skills and productivity, poor infrastructure, over-reliance on the finance sector, a boom that was too concentrated on London and out of control personal debt.