Prime Minister Cameron blocks Browns bid to head up the IMF

[dune]

In a direct attack on the former Prime Minister, Mr Cameron said his predecessor was not the "most appropriate person" to lead the IMF because he would not admit the UK had a "debt problem".

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/8460370/David-Cameron-blocks-Gordon-Brown-as-head-of-IMF.html

 

You've got to feel sorry for the man that saved the world...

 

[Doctoroncall]

It just comes down to whether he is able to learn from his mistakes.

[dubai_phil]

It just comes down to whether he is able to learn from his mistakes.

 

Hahahahahaha - I think that has to be the funniest concept I have ever seen on this forum...

 

A Politician LEARNING from mistakes. oh dear what a remarkably sweet & novel idea.

 

They NEVER make mistakes, any of them, ever

[Gemmel]

It just comes down to whether he is able to learn from his mistakes.

 

Really?

 

The leader of the IMF and we have to hope he has learnt from his mistakes? Absolutely not. We should quite rightly use our veto, if it comes to it, but I really don't see that he will get close to being one of the front runners.

[Colinjb]

It just comes down to whether he is able to learn from his mistakes.

 

That Brown even has the nerve to apply for this suggests he hasn't.

[Sheaf Saint]

Let's just get this into a little context here. I was listening to the today program on R4 when Cameron made this 'attack' yesterday, and the reality is that he was put on the spot by Evan Davies about it and, when pushed for an answer, replied that he had not spent any time thinking about it but that his own personal opinion was that he may not be the most suitable person for the job.

 

He did NOT say specifically that he would block or veto the appointment, but hey... never let the actual facts get in the way of a good bit of over-dramatisation by the media.

[JackFrost]

Brown running the IMF, just thinking about it makes me shudder

[Gemmel]

Let's just get this into a little context here. I was listening to the today program on R4 when Cameron made this 'attack' yesterday, and the reality is that he was put on the spot by Evan Davies about it and, when pushed for an answer, replied that he had not spent any time thinking about it but that his own personal opinion was that he may not be the most suitable person for the job.

 

He did NOT say specifically that he would block or veto the appointment, but hey... never let the actual facts get in the way of a good bit of over-dramatisation by the media.

 

Mr Cameron told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I haven't spent a huge amount of time thinking about this. But it does seem to me that, if you have someone who didn't think we had a debt problem in the UK, when we self-evidently do, they might not be the best person to work out whether other countries around the world have a debt and deficit problem".

He added: "Above all what matters is the person running the IMF someone who understands the dangers of excessive debt, excessive deficit, and it really must be someone who gets that rather than someone who says that they don't see a problem."

That's as close to political speak as you can get for; Fook off you stupid idiot, make one move and we will veto.

[Doctoroncall]

Hahahahahaha - I think that has to be the funniest concept I have ever seen on this forum...

 

A Politician LEARNING from mistakes. oh dear what a remarkably sweet & novel idea.

 

They NEVER make mistakes, any of them, ever

 

Surely it wasn't too subtle even for you Phil?

[bridge too far]

If Brown was the most gifted economist in the world, DC would still not support his candidature. Think about it rationally - if he supported him it would be tantamount to admitting that actually Brown was right in what he did to support the economy and, therefore, by implication, that DC / GO were wrong!

 

Crikey, even the majority of respected economic observers in the world failed to spot what was coming.

[OldNick]

If Brown was the most gifted economist in the world, DC would still not support his candidature. Think about it rationally - if he supported him it would be tantamount to admitting that actually Brown was right in what he did to support the economy and, therefore, by implication, that DC / GO were wrong!

 

Crikey, even the majority of respected economic observers in the world failed to spot what was coming.

Lol, and with gold at a record high no doubt Brown would sell it all at once, tell the markets he was doing so and the price would drop by half. The man just has no sense. BTW it was not rocket science to see what was going to happen (not the collapse of Lehman) but the general disaster that was building. Even posters on here were warning of the nonsense.

[Verbal]

Lol, and with gold at a record high no doubt Brown would sell it all at once, tell the markets he was doing so and the price would drop by half. The man just has no sense. BTW it was not rocket science to see what was going to happen (not the collapse of Lehman) but the general disaster that was building. Even posters on here were warning of the nonsense.

 

Brown's decision to sell gold at $275-317 over a three year period was horrendous, given it's now trading at $1115 or more. But he didn't do it to fill a public sector black hole. The funds were reinvested in currency bonds - 40% US dollar, 40% Euro's and 20% Yen. Nowhere near the returns on gold in hindsight, of course.

 

I don't really get why Brown wants the IMF job. That place is still dominated by Chicago-School economists - Thatcher's inspiration. Hence their ability to wreck countries by other means.

[dubai_phil]

If Brown was the most gifted economist in the world, DC would still not support his candidature. Think about it rationally - if he supported him it would be tantamount to admitting that actually Brown was right in what he did to support the economy and, therefore, by implication, that DC / GO were wrong!

 

Crikey, even the majority of respected economic observers in the world failed to spot what was coming.

 

But he wasn't the most gifted anything in the world. He was a nasty scheming back-stabber who worked to further his own dream of becoming PM. Forget Ideology, he simply (from his track record & tales from Tony) is not a very nice person AND he made some pretty major mistakes which are now hurting a lot of ordinary people that had nothing to do with the "Being Unlucky" due to outside factors argument.

[eurosaint]

To be fair he is still well connected, Sir Fred Goodwin (remember his mate, whom he knighted!) could be available for discussion and advice !!!

[Sheaf Saint]

Mr Cameron told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I haven't spent a huge amount of time thinking about this. But it does seem to me that, if you have someone who didn't think we had a debt problem in the UK, when we self-evidently do, they might not be the best person to work out whether other countries around the world have a debt and deficit problem".

He added: "Above all what matters is the person running the IMF someone who understands the dangers of excessive debt, excessive deficit, and it really must be someone who gets that rather than someone who says that they don't see a problem."

That's as close to political speak as you can get for; Fook off you stupid idiot, make one move and we will veto.

 

Even so though, the headline and the thread title make out like DC has already blocked the move, where in fact he hasn't; all he has done is voice his own personal opinion about Brown's suitability for it. I agree that when push comes to shove and Cameron is given the opportunity to veto it then he would probably elect to do so, but the media and the OP are making it seem that he already has, thus sensationalising a nothing story.

[LGTL]

Knowing Cameron and his U-turn obsession, i'm fully expecting Brown to be named head of the IMF shortly.

[bridge too far]

But he wasn't the most gifted anything in the world. He was a nasty scheming back-stabber who worked to further his own dream of becoming PM. Forget Ideology, he simply (from his track record & tales from Tony) is not a very nice person AND he made some pretty major mistakes which are now hurting a lot of ordinary people that had nothing to do with the "Being Unlucky" due to outside factors argument.

 

DP in missing the purpot of my first sentence shocker

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Brown's decision to sell gold at $275-317 over a three year period was horrendous, given it's now trading at $1115 or more. But he didn't do it to fill a public sector black hole. The funds were reinvested in currency bonds - 40% US dollar, 40% Euro's and 20% Yen. Nowhere near the returns on gold in hindsight, of course.

 

I don't really get why Brown wants the IMF job. That place is still dominated by Chicago-School economists - Thatcher's inspiration. Hence their ability to wreck countries by other means.

 

It was more the fact that he told everyone he was about to sell our Gold that was the really stupid thing.

[View From The Top]

Even ardent lefties like me know that Brown was/is an idiot. The gold and pensions debacle is evidence enough of that.

[Verbal]

It was more the fact that he told everyone he was about to sell our Gold that was the really stupid thing.

 

Oh, it was a dumbass thing to do however you look at it. Gordo was nowhere near as clever as he liked to think he was, and held sway because of his narcissistic self-belief and his seemingly limitless capacity to bully. Looking at it historically, I suppose the losses the UK Treasury incurred as a result of the sale of the gold at rock-bottom prices was perhaps greater, though not by much, than the losses incurred when Thatch conducted a fire sale of the 'family silver' - state assets sold at similarly rock-bottom prices, and with consequences we stare at every time, for example, we open an energy bill from a price-fixing, profiteering American or French-owned utility.

[franny]

Brown's decision to sell gold at $275-317 over a three year period was horrendous, given it's now trading at $1115 or more. But he didn't do it to fill a public sector black hole. The funds were reinvested in currency bonds - 40% US dollar, 40% Euro's and 20% Yen. Nowhere near the returns on gold in hindsight, of course.

 

I don't really get why Brown wants the IMF job. That place is still dominated by Chicago-School economists - Thatcher's inspiration. Hence their ability to wreck countries by other means.

 

I don't think it is the job specifically but the ability to strut the world stage again similar to his old partner in crime for example TB with his middle east "peace envoy" role or Kinnock in his EU commisioner role etc... Once politicians have tasted the limelight they cant take a step backward, you know the saying, today Britain tomorrow the world!! When the current mob are pensioned off they will be vying for similar posiitons.

[suewhistle]

Looking at it historically, I suppose the losses the UK Treasury incurred as a result of the sale of the gold at rock-bottom prices was perhaps greater, though not by much, than the losses incurred when Thatch conducted a fire sale of the 'family silver' - state assets sold at similarly rock-bottom prices, and with consequences we stare at every time, for example, we open an energy bill from a price-fixing, profiteering American or French-owned utility.

 

The difference being that, unlike gold, those assets used to produce a return.

 

I do wonder about Cameron: he goes on and on about all our debt, which we can sustain and which is at a lower level than many countries. I've got no issue with trying to get it down eventually. But does he really want us to have a proper crisis and have to pay more for servicing our bonds because that's what it looks like from all his negative rhetoric.

[Deppo]

Typical of the Tories to try and block something genuinely good for mankind like the IMF from doing good work purely because of their hatred of Gordon Brown.

 

Petty.

[dune]

Even ardent lefties like me know that Brown was/is an idiot. The gold and pensions debacle is evidence enough of that.

 

It's a disgrace what Labour did to company pension schemes and it's because of Labour that Final salary schemes are now running at something like 20% down from 80%. That said don't ever forget that Ed Balls, the current shadow Chancellor, is implicated.

 

[Verbal]

It's a disgrace what Labour did to company pension schemes and it's because of Labour that Final salary schemes are now running at something like 20% down from 80%. That said don't ever forget that Ed Balls, the current shadow Chancellor, is implicated.

 

 

Whether you like it or not, that is your next Chancellor. Take my advice, and emigrate now. Please.

[dune]

Whether you like it or not, that is your next Chancellor. Take my advice, and emigrate now. Please.

 

Looking at the polls that is what you'd think, but the next general election isn't until 2015. The country should be seeing the benefits of the coalition getting to grips with the deficit and don't forget the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act will also take away the unfair advantage Labour have had.

 

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/news/parliamentary-voting-system-and-constituencies-act-completes-passage-through-parliament

[Special K]

Whether you like it or not, that is your next Chancellor. Take my advice, and emigrate now. Please.

 

Nonsense. Balls wants the top job before the next election. They won't win anyway, but if they were to, his missus would be at No 11 and we'd all be well and truly FUBAR'd by the family infighting when she withdraws all wifely duties unless she gets her way.

[bridge too far]

It was graceless of David Cameron to attack Gordon Brown in such personal terms yesterday, ruling him out of a job for which there is not even a vacancy yet. The former Prime Minister has his eyes on the £270,000-a-year post as managing director of the International Monetary Fund, if the incumbent, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, decides to run against Nicolas Sarkozy in next year's French presidential election.

 

 

Mr Cameron is under no obligation to back him. And the Prime Minister made a reasonable point when he suggested that the IMF should look eastwards, to China or India, for a suitable candidate. But he could have argued that without indulging in derogatory comments about the former Prime Minister, saying that the IMF needs someone who "understands the dangers of excessive debt, excessive deficit" rather than "someone who says that they don't see a problem". Neither Tony Blair nor Margaret Thatcher ever belittled John Major or Jim Callaghan in such a fashion.

 

Nor should we be misled into thinking that Mr Cameron was driven by disinterested concern for the best interests of Britain or the IMF. This was low politics. Come the next election, the Conservatives will want people to believe that all the bad things they have experienced under the Coalition was the fault of Mr Brown and his former advisers, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls, while all the good is attributable to the Conservatives. If Mr Brown received recognition from the international community, it would spoil their story.

 

And the attack on Mr Brown's competence is not just unworthy, but contentious. The rest of the world copied Mr Brown's recapitalisation of the banks during 2008, implying that other governments are less begrudging about his achievements than our Prime Minister. Further, when the previous government announced the spending plans which brought about what Mr Cameron calls our "excessive debt", the Conservatives promised to match Labour's expenditure, pound for pound. So a question arises: if Gordon Brown is apparently not to be trusted with the stewardship of the IMF, can Mr Cameron and George Osborne be trusted with the British economy?

 

Full article here:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-camerons-contentious-and-unworthy-attack-2269993.html

[scotty]

It was graceless of David Cameron to attack Gordon Brown in such personal terms yesterday, ruling him out of a job for which there is not even a vacancy yet. The former Prime Minister has his eyes on the £270,000-a-year post as managing director of the International Monetary Fund, if the incumbent, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, decides to run against Nicolas Sarkozy in next year's French presidential election.

 

 

Mr Cameron is under no obligation to back him. And the Prime Minister made a reasonable point when he suggested that the IMF should look eastwards, to China or India, for a suitable candidate. But he could have argued that without indulging in derogatory comments about the former Prime Minister, saying that the IMF needs someone who "understands the dangers of excessive debt, excessive deficit" rather than "someone who says that they don't see a problem". Neither Tony Blair nor Margaret Thatcher ever belittled John Major or Jim Callaghan in such a fashion.

 

Nor should we be misled into thinking that Mr Cameron was driven by disinterested concern for the best interests of Britain or the IMF. This was low politics. Come the next election, the Conservatives will want people to believe that all the bad things they have experienced under the Coalition was the fault of Mr Brown and his former advisers, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls, while all the good is attributable to the Conservatives. If Mr Brown received recognition from the international community, it would spoil their story.

 

And the attack on Mr Brown's competence is not just unworthy, but contentious. The rest of the world copied Mr Brown's recapitalisation of the banks during 2008, implying that other governments are less begrudging about his achievements than our Prime Minister. Further, when the previous government announced the spending plans which brought about what Mr Cameron calls our "excessive debt", the Conservatives promised to match Labour's expenditure, pound for pound. So a question arises: if Gordon Brown is apparently not to be trusted with the stewardship of the IMF, can Mr Cameron and George Osborne be trusted with the British economy?

 

Full article here:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-camerons-contentious-and-unworthy-attack-2269993.html

 

I'm with Bexy on this one. Cameron didnt attack Brown on the Today programme, he pointed out some failings just like any other party politician would when given the opportunity on a BBC primetime flagship radio programme, but it was relatively lighthearted political point scoring. He did not say he would block the appointment. I've heard far worse said about Brown from labour politicians tbh.

[Lord Duckhunter]

In other news Peter Risdale has announced he wants to be Chairman of the FA.He Says his experience in saving Leeds would be invaluable when it comes to running English football.

[trousers]

Brown running the IMF, just thinking about it makes me shudder

 

Nutshell. Nothing to add m'lud. The defence rests.

[dune]

Nutshell. Nothing to add m'lud. The defence rests.

 

Brown running MFI makes me shudder.

[Gemmel]

It was graceless of David Cameron to attack Gordon Brown in such personal terms yesterday, ruling him out of a job for which there is not even a vacancy yet. The former Prime Minister has his eyes on the £270,000-a-year post as managing director of the International Monetary Fund, if the incumbent, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, decides to run against Nicolas Sarkozy in next year's French presidential election.

 

 

Mr Cameron is under no obligation to back him. And the Prime Minister made a reasonable point when he suggested that the IMF should look eastwards, to China or India, for a suitable candidate. But he could have argued that without indulging in derogatory comments about the former Prime Minister, saying that the IMF needs someone who "understands the dangers of excessive debt, excessive deficit" rather than "someone who says that they don't see a problem". Neither Tony Blair nor Margaret Thatcher ever belittled John Major or Jim Callaghan in such a fashion.

 

Nor should we be misled into thinking that Mr Cameron was driven by disinterested concern for the best interests of Britain or the IMF. This was low politics. Come the next election, the Conservatives will want people to believe that all the bad things they have experienced under the Coalition was the fault of Mr Brown and his former advisers, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls, while all the good is attributable to the Conservatives. If Mr Brown received recognition from the international community, it would spoil their story.

 

And the attack on Mr Brown's competence is not just unworthy, but contentious. The rest of the world copied Mr Brown's recapitalisation of the banks during 2008, implying that other governments are less begrudging about his achievements than our Prime Minister. Further, when the previous government announced the spending plans which brought about what Mr Cameron calls our "excessive debt", the Conservatives promised to match Labour's expenditure, pound for pound. So a question arises: if Gordon Brown is apparently not to be trusted with the stewardship of the IMF, can Mr Cameron and George Osborne be trusted with the British economy?

 

Full article here:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-camerons-contentious-and-unworthy-attack-2269993.html

 

 

Absolute horse ****eee, btf , stop now, you are emabarasing yourself.

Brown in charge of the IMF is akin to gary glitter running a kindegarden.

 

He didn't just fook up, he did it on a massive scale and when he got found out, he did it even more to hurt the next goverment. Nasty vindictive, useless, clueless unelected wannabe that has set this country back 2 generations.

[bridge too far]

Absolute horse ****eee, btf , stop now, you are emabarasing yourself.

Brown in charge of the IMF is akin to gary glitter running a kindegarden.

 

He didn't just fook up, he did it on a massive scale and when he got found out, he did it even more to hurt the next goverment. Nasty vindictive, useless, clueless unelected wannabe that has set this country back 2 generations.

 

I didn't write the article, you numbskull! I was just posting an article with an alternative point of view.

 

[Jonnyboy]

Brown running MFI makes me shudder.

 

Can't Believe it, I lolled

[benjii]

It was graceless of David Cameron to attack Gordon Brown in such personal terms yesterday, ruling him out of a job for which there is not even a vacancy yet. The former Prime Minister has his eyes on the £270,000-a-year post as managing director of the International Monetary Fund, if the incumbent, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, decides to run against Nicolas Sarkozy in next year's French presidential election.

 

 

Mr Cameron is under no obligation to back him. And the Prime Minister made a reasonable point when he suggested that the IMF should look eastwards, to China or India, for a suitable candidate. But he could have argued that without indulging in derogatory comments about the former Prime Minister, saying that the IMF needs someone who "understands the dangers of excessive debt, excessive deficit" rather than "someone who says that they don't see a problem". Neither Tony Blair nor Margaret Thatcher ever belittled John Major or Jim Callaghan in such a fashion.

 

Nor should we be misled into thinking that Mr Cameron was driven by disinterested concern for the best interests of Britain or the IMF. This was low politics. Come the next election, the Conservatives will want people to believe that all the bad things they have experienced under the Coalition was the fault of Mr Brown and his former advisers, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls, while all the good is attributable to the Conservatives. If Mr Brown received recognition from the international community, it would spoil their story.

 

And the attack on Mr Brown's competence is not just unworthy, but contentious. The rest of the world copied Mr Brown's recapitalisation of the banks during 2008, implying that other governments are less begrudging about his achievements than our Prime Minister. Further, when the previous government announced the spending plans which brought about what Mr Cameron calls our "excessive debt", the Conservatives promised to match Labour's expenditure, pound for pound. So a question arises: if Gordon Brown is apparently not to be trusted with the stewardship of the IMF, can Mr Cameron and George Osborne be trusted with the British economy?

 

Full article here:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-camerons-contentious-and-unworthy-attack-2269993.html

 

What crap. He was asked a question on it. He answered.

[dubai_phil]

What crap. He was asked a question on it. He answered.

 

I tried ever so hard to be gentle on BTF, but she kept on going.

 

Gordon Brown without doubt has been the worst disaster to hit "GB" since the Luftwaffe. His bright idea to free up the banks, The Gold sale, The Pensions Theft? Jeez.

 

TBH the best description I ever heard of him? He was the Iranians/Chinese/Pre Cold War Russians most successful ever Deep Cover Agent.

 

Let that moron join the "global Gravy Train?" You must be having a laugh

 

Gordon Brown - The man who makes us down here happy we lived under "An oppressive non-democratic regime"

 

BTF stop defending that pr1ck or saying you were only posting "alternative viewpoints"

[Verbal]

Hmm. Independent Leader writer vs internet dweebs. Tough choice.

[Thedelldays]

Hmm. Independent Leader writer vs internet dweebs. Tough choice.

 

are you an internet dweeb..?

[Saintandy666]

Gordon Brown did save the world. He was exactly right in the recession and his plans were copied the world over stopping a recession turning into a depression. Thank **** for Gordon Brown I say.

[Thedelldays]

Gordon Brown did save the world. He was exactly right in the recession and his plans were copied the world over stopping a recession turning into a depression. Thank **** for Gordon Brown I say.

 

yeah, you tell em

[Saintandy666]

yeah, you tell em

 

Thanks.

[trousers]

Gordon Brown did save the world. He was exactly right in the recession and his plans were copied the world over stopping a recession turning into a depression. Thank **** for Gordon Brown I say.

 

Fixing a problem that he over saw happening in the first place is hardly cause for a Mexican wave.

 

Now, had he taken the 'prevention rather than cure' approach, that would be a reason to revere him.

 

If I neglect my child and he ends up injuring himself as a result, am I then a hero for getting him to hospital in time...?

[bridge too far]

I tried ever so hard to be gentle on BTF, but she kept on going.

 

Gordon Brown without doubt has been the worst disaster to hit "GB" since the Luftwaffe. His bright idea to free up the banks, The Gold sale, The Pensions Theft? Jeez.

 

TBH the best description I ever heard of him? He was the Iranians/Chinese/Pre Cold War Russians most successful ever Deep Cover Agent.

 

Let that moron join the "global Gravy Train?" You must be having a laugh

 

Gordon Brown - The man who makes us down here happy we lived under "An oppressive non-democratic regime"

 

BTF stop defending that pr1ck or saying you were only posting "alternative viewpoints"

 

Nope, can't see it. Can't see that you've been gentle or not gentle.

 

Here's the first sentence of my first post on this subject:

 

"If Brown was the most gifted economist in the world, DC would still not support his candidature"

 

I can't see from that how you can deduce that I, me, BTF was saying GB was the most gifted economist in the world. Just making the point that DC would oppose GB WHATEVER the facts.

 

Capeesh?

[Saintandy666]

Fixing a problem that he over saw happening in the first place is hardly cause for a Mexican wave.

 

Now, had he taken the 'prevention rather than cure' approach, that would be a reason to revere him.

 

If I neglect my child and he ends up injuring himself as a result, am I then a hero for getting him to hospital in time...?

 

Oh yea, I forgot how Gordon Brown caused a world recession. MY BAD.

[trousers]

Oh yea, I forgot how Gordon Brown caused a world recession. MY BAD.

 

Where did I say he "caused" a world recession? He simply had the power and ability, if he saw fit, to intervene before the tower of cards collapsed.

 

He chose not to. That is all.

[Saintandy666]

Where did I say he "caused" a world recession?

 

So in your analogy, the child didn't injure himself then? Because if he did injure himself, surely he caused the problems that happened post-injury?

[trousers]

So in your analogy, the child didn't injure himself then? Because if he did injure himself, surely he caused the problems that happened post-injury?

 

The child got hurt because the parent left him alone to cross the road / play with matches / slip on the bath (etc).

 

It's the neglectful parent that didn't prevent the injury happening.

[trousers]

For what it's worth, I believe the Tories would have fallen into a similar complacency trap to Brown, but he was in power so he attracts the criticism.

[Saintandy666]

I still maintain that Gordon Brown did not personally cause most the problems we were in and actually was part of the world solution.

 

It's called capitalism and that means ups and downs, but I think the problem was we didn't regulate the banks enough and that was the entire world's problem. I also think that this recession was part of a natural realignment of the worlds wealth. It's all going east now.