« to my American readers | Main | heartlands »

May 01, 2008

Comments

Dan Hardie

It's been staring us in the face, quite literally, since the day last spring when you could walk into a bookshop and see a volume whose cover bore the words, in large print, 'COURAGE' and 'GORDON BROWN'.

Alex

Hey, it was obscured all these years by the vast, masturbating shadow of Tony Blair's very different but equally intense wankerhood.

ejh

It's funny, but all the wankers who briefed against Brown on Blair's behalf, did, actually, know what they were on about. They were still wankers because of the way they did it (and because they were doing it on behalf of a wanker) but they did, after all, know what sort of a wanker Gordon Brown was.

jamie

"...but all the wankers who briefed against Brown on Blair's behalf, did, actually, know what they were on about."

Yes, but they never made it clear, the wankers.

"It's been staring us in the face, quite literally, since the day last spring when you could walk into a bookshop and see a volume whose cover bore the words, in large print, 'COURAGE' and 'GORDON BROWN'."

(slaps forehead). God, yeah. That COURAGE thing. Now I feel like a wanker.

"...the vast, masturbating shadow of Tony Blair's very different but equally intense wankerhood."

I suppose in fairness there are worse things than being a wanker, and Blair was an extensive collection of them.

ajay

But (Bill Hicks voice) "it seemed so plausible!" I mean, it fitted everyone's ideas of Dramatic Structure. You had Blair, right, the charismatic, morally flexible, intellectually shallow but articulate one? Therefore his rival/partner, Brown, simply had to be his opposite - the spiky, moral, withdrawn, intelligent one.
It's Holmes and Watson. Wimsey and Parker. Riggs and Murtaugh. Aubrey and Maturin. Hornblower and Bush. That's how we were sold Cheney and Bush, come to that.

ajay

But (Bill Hicks voice) "it seemed so plausible!" I mean, it fitted everyone's ideas of Dramatic Structure. You had Blair, right, the charismatic, morally flexible, intellectually shallow but articulate one? Therefore his rival/partner, Brown, simply had to be his opposite - the spiky, moral, withdrawn, intelligent one.
It's Holmes and Watson. Wimsey and Parker. Riggs and Murtaugh. Aubrey and Maturin. Hornblower and Bush. That's how we were sold Cheney and Bush, come to that.

Oh, and thanks for the credit.

robr

Apparently he puts milk into peoples coffee before meetings in no 10 so they don't waste time on small talk and stiring the brew.
That to me is an act of a wanker.

Philip

I think this is all very unjust. A wanker is, by definition, a man who has a grip on something. That doesn't sound like Gordon to me.

A wonderer

The big decision, about which I believe Brown got people to do research before he took over, is to smack heads together at the top of numerous govt depts and tell them to get themselves into the 21st Century or get out (but be very careful with Home Office and its agencies - its getting better by the minute). Then choose some MPs with ability for the Ministerial posts. We have had more than enough of govt wasting our money and, without understanding, telling us how to run our lives; instead they should be making it easier for us to do it our own way as long as its legal.

Rev. Spooner

Not so sure about the wanker thing.

A wanker would be a one-eyed cock WITH a grip, so he's only part way there...

Darius Jedburgh

It's been clear to me since Laura Spence.

The comments to this entry are closed.

friends blogs

blobs

Blog powered by Typepad

my former home