[Archived] Gordon Brown

[Billy Castell]

Something that I find rather funny.

You seem to have a Transport minister called Hoon.

" hoon", in Australia is someone that drives in an irresponsible manner.

Just thought that I'd bring that to your attention.

Apparently our Mr. Hoon has a nickname-Buff.

[RibbleValleyRover]

More bad news for Brown:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...hk&refer=uk

"Rules created by U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown in 1997 to police the financial system have failed and contributed to the most recent crisis, lawmakers said.

Responsibility for raising the alarm on potential crises should return to the Bank of England, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee said in a report today. Currently, there is an “inadequate definition of roles” between the central bank, the Treasury and the financial regulator, it said.

“The tripartite regime in the U.K. was unable to fulfill principal purposes, namely financial stability,” Lord Ian Vallance, chairman of the committee that scrutinizes Treasury policy in the upper chamber of Parliament, told reporters in London.

The report adds to criticism of Brown’s decision as finance minister to strip the Bank of England of its supervisory role and hand it to a newly created regulator. That body, the Financial Services Authority, showed a “lack of rigor” during the crisis that started in 2007, Lord Vallance said. The opposition Conservative Party has proposed restoring oversight powers to the central bank."

No surprise that the BBC aren't covering it...

[BuckyRover]

It's a GLOBAL problem, created GLOBALLY.

In the words of Shaggy: "It wasn't me!" That's the Labour way!

The sooner we are shot of these cretins the better

[jim mk2]

Question for the Tory Boys and their little friend in the brewing industry.

1. Why did Call Me Dave and his colleagues not see the impending global financial implosion ?

2. Why did the Conservative party leadership fail to condemn rising house prices and the credit boom from 2000 - 2008 ?

3. Other than saying they would allow struggling British companies to go to the wall, what solutions have the Tories provided to the global economic crisis ?

The Tories have had nothing to say on the global economic crisis and have not been able to bring themselves to attack the policies that exacerbated this mess because for the most part they supported them – certainly on public spending.

They haven’t a clue what they would have done differently because that would require a plan, and the Tories don't have one.

[Billy Castell]

True, very true, but Labour did make a whole load of mistakes that has led to this mess, and they are really struggling to seem incompetent let alone adequate.

[BuckyRover]

Whereas the current Government came up with this scheme (as well as much bluster).

http://www.yourmortgage.co.uk/news/3625854

So after being released with a fanfare and the declaration that the Tories wouldn't do anything for the poor, we can see how much help has been provided in 3 months. 450+ applications, 1 successful applicant (a news report from the other day, says this has now increased to two!!).

Brilliant, I could have developed a better scheme on the back of a fag packet!

I don't care if the Tories are just as bad, I will only care after they have been in office for a few terms and I can see that they are THAT bad (and then Labour can get back in and spend all the money again).

That's politics!

[tashor]

Question for the Tory Boys and their little friend in the brewing industry.

1. Why did Call Me Dave and his colleagues not see the impending global financial implosion ?

2. Why did the Conservative party leadership fail to condemn rising house prices and the credit boom from 2000 - 2008 ?

3. Other than saying they would allow struggling British companies to go to the wall, what solutions have the Tories provided to the global economic crisis ?

The Tories have had nothing to say on the global economic crisis and have not been able to bring themselves to attack the policies that exacerbated this mess because for the most part they supported them – certainly on public spending.

They haven’t a clue what they would have done differently because that would require a plan, and the Tories don't have one.

The way out of this crisis it to cut tax to increase money supply to large and small businesses which will allow them to try and survive or even grow. The more money there is in the country – be it in the hands of the rich or even those still lucky enough to be employed the better it is for the economy – even a rich @#/? out on a posh night out in expensive restaurants keeps us ordinary folk in jobs. Also the less tax you all pay the more money YOU will be able to spend which will help the economy. THE PROBLEM IS THAT JIM AND HIS RETARDED MATES IN GOVERNMENT SPENT ALL OUR MONEY ON DAFT SCHEMES AND BORROWED EVEN MORE SO THEY COULD BRIBE THE POOR @#/?S THAT BELIEVE IN SOCIALISM SO THEY WOULD KEEP VOTING FOR THIS LOT. THAT MONEY IS STILL TO BE REPAID SO WE HAVE NOWT IN THE KITTY. YOUR KIDS WILL BE PAYING FOR BROWN’S EVIL WAYS FOR 30 YEARS WHOEVER WINS THE ELECTION. This also means that there is no way to cut taxes as Brown still has to pay for his madcap schemes and bribes as he never put money aside when the economy was strong - never mind kept borrowing as he had declared he had put an end to boom and bust for ever !!!

The question we all have to ask ourselves is have we been conned by Blair/Brown and the rest of the self-serving scum or have they REALLY been looking after our interests all this time. It is no coincidence that Jim used to be one of the lying journalists that have allowed this evil to go on for so long.

Who are YOU going to vote for – unlike our resident fascist dictator I’m not going to tell you – but do yourselves a favour and get rid of the party that have lied for so many years and taken so much tax revenue off ordinary people. They have been ruling us for a dozen years now – is that long enough to judge them ?? And yet all they do is bleat about what the Tories say. GET RID OR CONTINUE TO STEW IN JIM’S ######.

[thenodrog]

The way out of this crisis it to cut tax to increase money supply to large and small businesses which will allow them to try and survive or even grow. The more money there is in the country – be it in the hands of the rich or even those still lucky enough to be employed the better it is for the economy – even a rich @#/? out on a posh night out in expensive restaurants keeps us ordinary folk in jobs. Also the less tax you all pay the more money YOU will be able to spend which will help the economy. THE PROBLEM IS THAT JIM AND HIS RETARDED MATES IN GOVERNMENT SPENT ALL OUR MONEY ON DAFT SCHEMES AND BORROWED EVEN MORE SO THEY COULD BRIBE THE POOR @#/?S THAT BELIEVE IN SOCIALISM SO THEY WOULD KEEP VOTING FOR THIS LOT. THAT MONEY IS STILL TO BE REPAID SO WE HAVE NOWT IN THE KITTY. YOUR KIDS WILL BE PAYING FOR BROWN’S EVIL WAYS FOR 30 YEARS WHOEVER WINS THE ELECTION. This also means that there is no way to cut taxes as Brown still has to pay for his madcap schemes and bribes as he never put money aside when the economy was strong - never mind kept borrowing as he had declared he had put an end to boom and bust for ever !!!

The question we all have to ask ourselves is have we been conned by Blair/Brown and the rest of the self-serving scum or have they REALLY been looking after our interests all this time. It is no coincidence that Jim used to be one of the lying journalists that have allowed this evil to go on for so long.

Who are YOU going to vote for – unlike our resident fascist dictator I’m not going to tell you – but do yourselves a favour and get rid of the party that have lied for so many years and taken so much tax revenue olook stupidff ordinary people. They have been ruling us for a dozen years now – is that long enough to judge them ?? And yet all they do is bleat about what the Tories say. GET RID OR CONTINUE TO STEW IN JIM’S ######.

Tash mate cool down...... Don't fall in his pathetic traps. He's making himself look more stupid by the day. Don't try to stop him ffs.

[Flopsy]

Sheesh Tash, have you not noticed that only Jim will be voting for Labour, everyone else has more sense.

Relax cast your vote Thursday, and then cry as Ed Balls becomes Chancellor, because if you thought Darling was bad, this moron will be a hell of a lot worse.

Jim, do you wish to discuss Ball and Cooper's second home flipping and food bills?

[colin]

The veterans who will be making the trip want to see the Queen there and people need to keep in mind she did military service in WW2.

Hardly:

She joined the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service, as No. 230873 Second Subaltern Elizabeth Windsor. She trained as a driver and mechanic, drove a military truck, and rose to the rank of Junior Commander.[22] She is, at present, "the only living head of state who served in uniform during World War II".[23]

[Anti-Dingle-Brigade]

Sheesh Tash, have you not noticed that only Jim will be voting for Labour, everyone else has more sense.

Relax cast your vote Thursday, and then cry as Ed Balls becomes Chancellor, because if you thought Darling was bad, this moron will be a hell of a lot worse.

Without knowing caring that much about politics, it seems like the right(er) wing parties (UKIP/BNP) are rising rapidly in popularity.

Is there any possibility of UKIP actually winning?

I apologise for my unashamed ignorance but I'm much too disinterested to filter through political waffle and agendas to work out how far behind UKIP/BNP are in relation to the big three parties.

[tony gale's mic]

The way out of this crisis it to cut tax to increase money supply to large and small businesses which will allow them to try and survive or even grow. The more money there is in the country – be it in the hands of the rich or even those still lucky enough to be employed the better it is for the economy – even a rich @#/? out on a posh night out in expensive restaurants keeps us ordinary folk in jobs. Also the less tax you all pay the more money YOU will be able to spend which will help the economy. THE PROBLEM IS THAT JIM AND HIS RETARDED MATES IN GOVERNMENT SPENT ALL OUR MONEY ON DAFT SCHEMES AND BORROWED EVEN MORE SO THEY COULD BRIBE THE POOR @#/?S THAT BELIEVE IN SOCIALISM SO THEY WOULD KEEP VOTING FOR THIS LOT. THAT MONEY IS STILL TO BE REPAID SO WE HAVE NOWT IN THE KITTY. YOUR KIDS WILL BE PAYING FOR BROWN’S EVIL WAYS FOR 30 YEARS WHOEVER WINS THE ELECTION. This also means that there is no way to cut taxes as Brown still has to pay for his madcap schemes and bribes as he never put money aside when the economy was strong - never mind kept borrowing as he had declared he had put an end to boom and bust for ever !!!

The question we all have to ask ourselves is have we been conned by Blair/Brown and the rest of the self-serving scum or have they REALLY been looking after our interests all this time. It is no coincidence that Jim used to be one of the lying journalists that have allowed this evil to go on for so long.

Who are YOU going to vote for – unlike our resident fascist dictator I’m not going to tell you – but do yourselves a favour and get rid of the party that have lied for so many years and taken so much tax revenue off ordinary people. They have been ruling us for a dozen years now – is that long enough to judge them ?? And yet all they do is bleat about what the Tories say. GET RID OR CONTINUE TO STEW IN JIM’S ######.

Typical uneducated tripe.

I'm far from being the sort of person to defend the current Government - although I'm centre-left at heart and will loathe to see the Tories get in, I accept it's just part of the natural political cycle that will go on and on and on. Leave any party in charge for as long as this lot have been in charge and they WILL start screwing up. They certainly don't deserve to be in power right now, however I see few fantastic ideas eminating from the blue corner.

But that post above is utter rubbish. Generally anyone who needs to make their point with so many capitals probably spends most of their days with grazed knuckles.

The classic "trickle down" effect is such a simplistic approach to things it's not even funny. The answer to society's ills is NOT putting more and more money into the hands of the rich. If you seriously think cutting taxes is a surefire way to lead to economic growth then I refer you to this graph, from the United States over the years:

There's no sustained correlation on the graph, and once the data from this graph was analysed statistically (not by me, I must add), it showed there was next to no correlation between tax cuts and growth.

But even forgetting growth, if you honestly think that tax cuts are the best way of improving our society, when the NHS is already overstretched, when there's such a big discrepancy between private and state education, then you clearly don't really have your thinking cap on. Why do our Scandinavian friends have such high quality lifestyles and our American friends have an far bigger rich/poor gap than ours, a country where 1/5th of the population aren't medically covered?

And if instead you're specifically referring to the 50% tax rate, that's for people earning above £150,000. They will be dining at the same posh restaurants and spending a huge amount either way, since its the money over £150,000 which they'll be taxed extra on. And it affects such a small amount of people that it won't make a jot of difference to our economy. Not sure how big a difference it'll make in revenue either mind, but certainly not something to get too heated about.

Calling this Labour government "socialist" is utterly, utterly bewildering. Calling Brown's actions "evil" similarly so - either you have a desperately poor vocabulary or your very concept of evil is totally warped. One can attach various negative terms to Brown's laissez-faire approach to the economy these last few years (methods which surely wouldnt have differed that far from a Tory approach), but the word "evil" should only really be reserved for matters such as Bush and Blair's slaughtering of innocents in Iraq. Look it up in the dictionary if you don't believe me.

You've managed to call our government "socialist" and "fascist" in the same post.

The mind boggles...

[colin]

Sheesh Tash, have you not noticed that only Jim will be voting for Labour, everyone else has more sense.

Relax cast your vote Thursday, and then cry as Ed Balls becomes Chancellor, because if you thought Darling was bad, this moron will be a hell of a lot worse.

Jim, do you wish to discuss Ball and Cooper's second home flipping and food bills?

Flopsy,

The elections on Thursday are for:

(a) The European Parlliament

and/or

( local councils

I don't think either my local Councillors nor my North West MEPs have been involved in the money grabbing shambles, corruption, greed and avarice that has been recently highlighted at Westminster.

So I don't think it makes sense to vote against anyone on that basis.

Of course if you are voting for someone else, feel free. My moat is all yours. Duck island & mortgage hurrah!

[jim mk2]

Jim, do you wish to discuss Ball and Cooper's second home flipping and food bills?

Certainly, if you would also like to discuss Tory policy chief Oliver Letwin's £2,000 claim to fix a pipe under a tennis court.

Tory MP Douglas Hogg's £2200 cost of clearing a moat at his country estate

Tory grandee Sir Peter Viggers's £1,645 claim to maintain his duck house.

David Willetts claim for more than £100 for workmen to replace 25 light bulbs at his home

Shadow chancellor George Osborne's tax claim for a chauffeur.

Or Totnes MP Anthony Steen's claim for more than £80,000 for work at his £1m Devon mansion - and claiming the criticism was jealousy because he had a big house.

And you are going to vote for these people....... ???

[broadsword]

Hardly:

She joined the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service, as No. 230873 Second Subaltern Elizabeth Windsor. She trained as a driver and mechanic, drove a military truck, and rose to the rank of Junior Commander.[22] She is, at present, "the only living head of state who served in uniform during World War II".[23]

Wasn't she part of teh D-Day landings as well?

[BuckyRover]

Labour had a massive majority in 1997. They arethe Government, they are in charge. They should have sorted the expenses system out, they had the power, no other party had enough mps to be able to do this.

They failed, trying to pin it on anybody else is laughable. Yes, many people benefitted but the buck stops with the Government.

[broadsword]

Certainly, if you would also like to discuss Tory policy chief Oliver Letwin's £2,000 claim to fix a pipe under a tennis court.

Tory MP Douglas Hogg's £2200 cost of clearing a moat at his country estate

Tory grandee Sir Peter Viggers's £1,645 claim to maintain his duck house.

David Willetts claim for more than £100 for workmen to replace 25 light bulbs at his home

Shadow chancellor George Osborne's tax claim for a chauffeur.

Or Totnes MP Anthony Steen's claim for more than £80,000 for work at his £1m Devon mansion - and claiming the criticism was jealousy because he had a big house.

And you are going to vote for these people....... ???

So to summarise:

- Don't vote Tory, they've stolen from the tax-payer to furnish their privileged lifestyle

- Vote for Labour, because although they've got tehir hands caught in the till as well, and completely ar5ed up the economy ... they're not the Tory party.

Fantastic.

I guess using the same logic, Gordon Brown is a capable Prime Minister, because he's not a Tory, and the Tory party is a global problem which started in America?

You must be a hoot down the pub on a Friday lunchtime

[tashor]

Typical uneducated tripe.

The mind boggles...

Mmmnnn - I wonder what I do for a living........

And how much do I earn.........

And which Universities did I once attend..........

Funny if one day I am interviewing you for a post..........

[pg]

Any society that uses a financial system based on credit and interest rates will soon create catastrophic levels of wealth concentration (i.e. huge gaps between the rich and poor with the top 1% owning 99% of the wealth).

This is a mathematical fact.

The trends towards increased wealth concentration will continue, because that is the mathematical effect of compound interest. Various mathematical proofs can be found all over the internet.

This is why governments have to implement progressive tax systems, in order to offset the effects of the financial system which actively widens the gap between the rich and the poor.

Some examples:

Bookkeeping Mistakes - Dieter Braun (pdf link)

Dieter Braun is a theoretical physicist at the Max Plank institute, and he applies Statisical Mechanics to economic problems.

The Time Value of Money (powerpoint link)

Robert M. Hayes is an emeritus Professor from UCLA. The Mathematics from his presentation can be represented here:

Interest, especially compound interest, plays a significant role in the concentration of wealth.

In a society, considered from an economic standpoint, there are two primary means for production: |iberal and Capital. The former represents the results of the contributions of individuals as the agents of production; the latter, the results from investment of accumulated past savings in the tools for production.

The relationship between production, on the one hand, and |iberal and capital, as the means for production, on the other, is usually represented by a “production function”, a relatively simple example of which is the Cobb-Douglas production function.

In a very real sense, interest represents the societal income from the investment of the capital.

The question at hand here is the relationship between interest and the concentration of wealth.

To examine that relationship, let’s let the Capital owned by person k be C(k), the income from Capital be i*C(k) (so the interest rate, or “return on capital”, is i), the production generated by person k from |iberal be L(k), and the total expenditures related to person k be E(k).

It is relevant and even important to note that the total expenditures, E(k), related to a person consist of three components: (1) personal expenditures (for self and dependents), (2) production expenditures (represented in part by “overhead”, which includes “management”, space, etc., and in part by materials), and (3) societal expenditures (represented primarily by government and, thus, taxes).

(The difference between the E(k) and the personal expenditures of person k, is what Karl Marx refers to as “surplus value”. That is, it is the excess of a person’s production over what is directly received for it.)

Normally, one would expect the total expenditures, over all persons, to be less than or at most equal to the total production over all persons (otherwise the accumulated social wealth of the past will be dissipated).

If L(k) – E(k) + i*C(k) > 0, there will be a net addition to societal capital (and, of course, if L(k) – E(k) + i*C(k) < 0, a net reduction to societal capital) from person k. Let’s suppose that person k is permitted to keep the increase (or lose the decrease) and add it to (or subtract it from) C(k).

Now, consider two persons, P1 and P2. Let C(k), k = 1, 2 be their respective ownership of the societal wealth. So their income from Capital will be i*C(k), respectively. Let their respective production from their |iberal be the same, L, and let their respective consumption also be the same, E. Thus, in this context, they differ only in their relative wealth.

Then, their respective net savings will be S(k) = i*C(k) + L – E. The total societal net savings will be S(1) + S(2) = i*(C(1) + C(2)) + 2*(L – E).

The individual net savings result in a new distribution of capital wealth:

C’(k) = C(k) + S(k) = C(k) + i*C(k) + L – E

Let C(1) = C(2) + X, so that, if X > 0, P1 has more wealth than P2.

Then, C’(1) = C(2) + X + i*(C(2) + X) + L – E = (1 + i)*(C(2) + X) + L – E and C’(2) = (1 + i)*C(2) + L – E

C’(1)/C’(2) = 1 + (1 + i)*X/C’(2) = 1 + (1 + i)*X/((1 + i)*C(2) + L – E)

If L – E < 0, then (1 + i)*C(2) > (1 + i)*C(2) + L – E and therefore (1 + i)/((1 + i)*C(2) + L – E) > 1/C(2)

Therefore, C’(1)/C’(2) > 1 + X/C(2) = C(1)/C(2)

Thus, if the expenditures related to a person are greater than the production related to that person, that person’s relative share of the wealth will be reduced, even though his amount of wealth may increase.

[dave birch]

pg, you've got too much time on your hands

I got a headache just looking at the quote.

However, this bit did interest me:

"Thus, if the expenditures related to a person are greater than the production related to that person, that person’s relative share of the wealth will be reduced, even though his amount of wealth may increase."

In other words, if you want to increase your overall wealth, don't spend more than you earn.

I know the answer to this, but I'll ask the question anyway..... What does any professor/economist or the like produce that adds value to the wealth pool?

[Tris]

Certainly, if you would also like to discuss Tory policy chief Oliver Letwin's £2,000 claim to fix a pipe under a tennis court.

Tory MP Douglas Hogg's £2200 cost of clearing a moat at his country estate

Tory grandee Sir Peter Viggers's £1,645 claim to maintain his duck house.

David Willetts claim for more than £100 for workmen to replace 25 light bulbs at his home

Shadow chancellor George Osborne's tax claim for a chauffeur.

Or Totnes MP Anthony Steen's claim for more than £80,000 for work at his £1m Devon mansion - and claiming the criticism was jealousy because he had a big house.

And you are going to vote for these people....... ???

Another of Brown's ministers is disgraced - claimed 6000 quid for oak beams and a fireplace, 2000 for a sofa, 1000 for a Samsung LCD tv ...

Strange the printing press scrubber didn't use his Reuters log-in to bring that gem to the fore 7 hours ago

[philipl]

These are just observations:

The expenses crisis is vastly exacerbated by the Telegraph.

They have had the data for yonks but have chosen to drip feed it and are still drip feeding it. What a surprise, that in being "even handed" they got the Tories last week but this week (election week) they are getting Labour. And I would put my bottom dollar that tomorrow on the day of the election, they will parade a Lib Dem.

The Telegraph's handling of the crisis for their own commercial gain has been a disgrace and weeks after the affair begain, all MPs are wondering whether a stray Mars bar is going to be a Telegraph headline tomorrow. I am not defending the MPs or the Labour Goverment but it is ludicrous that the country's governance is being paralysed by a newspaper's editorial policy of spinning out a story ad nauseum for its own commercial benefit.

The reality is that some MPs have been committing fraud.

And a second reality is that proportionately per MP in Parliament, the Tories have been BY FAR THE WORST OFFENDERS. Just go to the Telegraph web site and look at the offenders list then remember there are nearly 50% more Labour MPs than Tories.

It seems to me that Brown has been let off the £6k to his brother because Cameron's own expenses record is deeply shoddy and involves far more cash- and Cameron comes from a very wealthy background, hardly a son of the manse that Brown is.

As for UKIP benefitting from the Westminster expenses scandal- that is the biggest joke of all.

They have been boasting about ripping off the Brussels expenses system ever since they got elected, one of their MEPs has done time for financal malfeasance, and another is being charged with criminal offences relating to money. They are so pro-UK that their leader Farage employs Maltese staff in Brussels (and gets caught sending them emails telling them to sound more English!) and offered an anti-European Maltese MEP an English UKIP seat!!!

[Tris]

The expenses crisis is vastly exacerbated by the Telegraph.

You reap what you sow.

The writer of the Guardian editorial appears to have read my post on this thread from two nights ago.

And come to the same conclusion. Gordon Brown is toast.

[jim mk2]

These are just observations:

The expenses crisis is vastly exacerbated by the Telegraph.

They have had the data for yonks but have chosen to drip feed it and are still drip feeding it.

The Telegraph's handling of the crisis for their own commercial gain has been a disgrace and weeks . I am not defending the MPs or the Labour Goverment but it is ludicrous that the country's governance is being paralysed by a newspaper's editorial policy of spinning out a story ad nauseum for its own commercial benefit.

You're being very naive there Philip. Newspapers are commercial organisations after all.

I wouldn't normally congraulate a rightwing rag like the Torygraph but I have to say they have played saga this brilliantly.

This information had been hawked around the national papers for months and the Torygraph's decision to pay a hefty sum (though not the asking price) has paid off handsomely with a huge rise in ciruculation since they started running these stories, showing that old-fashioned scoops will always sell newspapers.

Westminster only has itself to blame for the greed and lies that is being exposed daily and if the country's governance is being "paralysed" by the press then it is surely a triumph for democracy. Long may it continue and perhaps this furore might also lead to more open government.

You reap what you sow.

The writer of the Guardian editorial appears to have read my post on this thread from two nights ago.

And come to the same conclusion. Gordon Brown is toast.

Guardian leader writer consults football messageboard for inspiration. Amazing !

Considering the brewing industry have traditionally sponsored the Tory party I'm not sure if the boss will approve. Very disappointing.

[thenodrog]

Certainly, if you would also like to discuss Tory policy chief Oliver Letwin's £2,000 claim to fix a pipe under a tennis court.

Tory MP Douglas Hogg's £2200 cost of clearing a moat at his country estate

Tory grandee Sir Peter Viggers's £1,645 claim to maintain his duck house.

David Willetts claim for more than £100 for workmen to replace 25 light bulbs at his home

Shadow chancellor George Osborne's tax claim for a chauffeur.

Or Totnes MP Anthony Steen's claim for more than £80,000 for work at his £1m Devon mansion - and claiming the criticism was jealousy because he had a big house.

And you are going to vote for these people....... ???

As opposed to us paying for porn vids just to arouse and cajole the husband of the Home Sec enough to give her a good rogering every now and again. !!!!!!!! They are all at it you clown... and you know it.

Carry on making youself look ever more stupid to all Jim.... I'm lovin it. No one will ever take you seriously again.

btw 1 Did Flopsy actually say who he was voting for?

btw 2 No one can defend the indefensible but would it have made Letwins water pipe burst any different if it had been under the lawn or the driveway? I have had quite a bit of plumbing work at my house as you know and I can tell you sometimes such things do happen.