baldysblog.co.uk

Yesterday evening Gordon Brown gave a speech at the Mansion House, an opportunity to lay out his “vision” for Foreign policy directions under a Brown Government. I will not dissect his speech, others may do a better job but, I noticed with some amusement that finally as Prime Minister, he actually wore a white tie whereas previously as Chancellor, he had deliberately dressed down for such events.

This speech is of importance in only one respect, it once again emphasises that whilst Brown likes to play with intellectual “concepts” there is never a description of the mechanism for delivery of these into practical solutions. Right across the board and in all policy areas, there is clearly no “vision”, not one single idea and concept to hold the whole thing together and make sense of it all. Frankly that is not a surprise, Brown has been in charge of domestic policy for these past 10 years and probably run out of ideas long ago.

Contrast this and however discredited it maybe now, with Blair and the concept of the “War on Terror”. Whether you agreed with it or not, it was one single concept behind which everything else followed, rather like the bow of a ship cutting through water, the rest follows. In previous generations that single concept was the very survival of Britain during WW11, Nationalisation by a post war Labour Government and so on.

David Cameron is right however ridiculed by mental retards who claim to be Tory, to concentrate on a “Broken Society” as the concept behind which Welfare Reform, devolution of health and education to local user groups, strengthening of marriage and so on. Talk about “small government” and you leave the electorate stone cold, talk about ideas and solutions to problems that they meet on the streets in their everyday life and you take them with you.

The problem with Brown is that the question, “What is this man for ?” will start to get asked again and again. We were told this man was an “intellectual, a thinker” but all that seems to translate to is someone who reads lots of books which is fair enough but, you should be able to understand them too. As for his “political prowess as the Great Clunking Fist”, there is no evidence to support this, skulduggery one would suspect, political finesse, unlikely and leadership qualities nil. A good “manager” can always be judged by his/her No.2: If the No.2 is bright and pretty capable of doing their bosses job, the boss is probably good because he chooses talent. If the No.2 is a dogsbody then the boss is probably rubbish, now look at Brown’s Cabinet and apply the same test…