In an article entitled “Large armchairs for great failures” ‘Ligur’described Gordon thus – “the ex English premier, has passed into history as a true disaster, with actions and omissions of the colour blind or an individual with crossed laterality. Consequences: slowness and stubbornness amongst others.
“He neither saw the crisis nor were his measures immediate, which caused a meltdown of English banking, which hastily passed into the hands of the State in frightening proportions. The State remains the owner of much of the English major banks, who were not purchased by nor have the participation of Spain’s Santander. In the first elections they gave him his settlement. He went correctly but politicians rarely assume their failures and they go home to hope that an editor will commission their memoirs.”
After dwelling on the future for the next 100 years being in Africa ‘Ligur’ goes on to address the IMF where Brown has been touted as a possible president causing much heated debate in the UK.
‘Ligur’ is of the view that the political class in general and especially in Brussels receive “the surreal and corrupt” because its politicians and senior officials are supported including placing “the surplus failed and burned out” in well-paid jobs at international level.
He continues: “Mr. David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, has spoken clearly about his predecessor stating “he is not the appropriate person to lead the IMF since he never admitted the UK had a debt problem”. Fortunately, for Mr Brown to receive that post, which reported has a salary of 270,000 pounds (350,000 Euros) a year, the British Government would have to nominate him which clearly the coalition has no intention of doing.
‘Ligur’ then addresses his fellow Spaniards: “It is not that the antics and intrigues of the House of Commons that waken me from this dream but it is the similarities… Because his (Brown’s) Spanish counterpart Zapatero has more or less the same merits.” He believes a retired Zapatero, who leaves office next March, could be bound for the World Bank. So, asks ‘Ligur’, if the opposition Partido Popular leader, Mariano Rajoy, replaces him after the 2012 elections will he back Zapatero’s appointment?
Brown and Zapatero are both failed premiers. Their respective socialist parties are more popular than they. Some might argue the IMF and World Bank deserves them. The question is, do we?
2 comments:
Is it really fair to describe Zapatero as a "failed premier'? That would be an obvious conclusion given the economic difficulties in which Spain currently find itself, but it would be a superficial one that confuses unfortunate coincidences with causation mixed with hindsight.
On the Economic Policy front, it should not be forgotten that not only did ZP maintain continuity with the Aznar administration, but the economy was working very well up until the crash. Even now, the international community (IMF, WB and EU) have expressed their confidence in ZP to carry out "what's necessary."
Then, on the non-economic side, I think that to call ZP a 'failed premier' would also deny the social revolution that his legislative programme enabled, also known as 'Citizen socialism' with an emphasis on social rights and freedoms.
Finally, I've just discovered your blog and look forward to reading it in the future!
When I described Zapatero as a “failed” premier I thought not twice but three or four times before I used the term. In January the PP recorded a 44.1 per cent response from those questioned by CIS and that narrowed to 43.8 per cent last month. However whilst PSOE clocked up a lowly 34.00 per cent in January that now stands at 33.4 per cent – a 10.4 per cent lead for the PP, up from 10.1. The other readings are not good for PSOE. Only .4 believe the party’s governance is very good, 7.3 per cent good, 32.4 ok, 32.3 bad and 25.7 per cent very bad. Therefore whilst I accept the achievements of Zapatero the fact he has failed to carry his country men and women sadly marks him as a failure.
Post a Comment