91Èȱ¬

I think that Gordon has only just realised that the chances of him winning the next election are looking thinner and thinner. He got to look as charasmatic as Cameron if hes got any chance at all. People are going to dislike him no matter what he does, because they will remember that he forced Blair out (even though they wanted Blair gone in the first place).

Its the end of Thatcher all over again, only this time, Gordon isn't going to have the kind of run that John Major got. The populace will out!

I wonder why the Chancellor has been so revered by the political classes? To add to the Arctic Monkeys andGazza nonsense he has now involved his young son in his squalid political intrigues to explain away the visit of Tom Watson on the eve of coup and the disastrous grinning Gordon photo debacle. Naff and desperate.

Blame it all on the wee bairn!

No one believed Gnasher Browns line. Did they?.. I reckon it may not in fact have been him. Did the 91Èȱ¬ make up department use an animated stuffed lookalike? They got the voice over all wrong, though it does go quite well with the smarmy smile photos.
I sense a lull in the fighting since TB has stepped out of the ring for a rapid soirre to sort out other pressing problems. But He'll be back!!!
The first few rounds were fairly lively but GBs steam is running out and TB hasn't been touched yet, in fact the last round he spent leaning against a corner post fending his opponent off with one glove and occasionally yawning.
To end with, Nick. do you think we have seen the end of Gnashers Kamikaze squads?

Brown has committed Political suicide : he has engineered a coup , and like Macbeth, steeped himself in blood without delivering the mortal blow. Politically/personally he has the anti-midas touch. It's a mystery why this miserable, bunker dwelling bungler is so popular as a putative successor!

I have to say, I found Gordon agreed with me this morning. He came across like a professional, well-spoken, polite, and I liked the points he made (well up to 0930, at which point I had to relinquish the remote control). He made my breakfast pleasant, unlike Blair, who by now makes such long pauses in his sentences, that you can fit an extra sentence (such as "Come on, get ON with it!!!) inbetween his words... not nice to listen to, and while eating makes you hold your breath which is not good for digestion (hence my game of how many sentences can I fit into the breaks of one of his sentences - the added bonus being that I totally miss his point, which normally is a good thing).

Gordon Brown has signed his own death warrant by blaming his "stupid, stupid" grin on his own defenceless wee bairn.

If it takes him three days to think up a fib as pathetic as that, how on earth will he manage when the heat is really on?

Why does 91Èȱ¬ always have Labour's pet in the form of A Marr interviewing Gordon Brown?
What's wrong with John Humphreys or Nick Robinson? At least, then, we might be more inclined to give him some credulity - if he can find his way out of the paper bag.

I think Gordon was grinning about his baby. Someone had to him: "he'll be in No. 10 by his first birthday".

Brown is more Richard III than MacBeth - You can almost see the hump.

Now, could someone fetch Leo from the basement?

Leopards don't change their spots . Enough said.

What a farce! Brown puts on his smiley and softly-softly act with Andy Marr -- but whom does he think he will fool? This is a man who has bullied colleagues, betrayed the Prime minister, and doubled the volume of tax legislation whilst pretending that none of it meant more taxation! He is arrogant, and thinks we are all idiots. Is it too late for Blair to sack him (as he should have done, two or three years ago)? Blair has made mistakes, certainly, but is broadly honest and has a degree of humility about him. Let him stay, and groom another successor. Meanwhile, where can I buy an "anyone but Brown" bumper sticker?

I'm inclined not too be so critical of Brown's performance this morning. As Nick points out he even managed to talk about policy and what would be different about a Brown premiership.

It did not sound to me like he was using his child at all, in fact his explanation of policies based upon his experience of fatherhood was credible. I think that fatherhood will become a clear and welcome focus in the years to come.

Let's just hope it is genuine and he can keep it up.

What sort of bloke highjacks someone else's wedding for a photo opportunity?

What do you want Brown to do - swear about Blair in public? Get real. I think that he showed that he is ready for the responsibilities of being Prime Minister - rather than just being immature, as you want him to be.

listen to the interview again. before every akward question he giggles. what's this tell you

a) he's lying

b) he really is as socially awkward as a lot of people think.

This is the game Blair is playing: you strike a deal with your rival, who is less charismatic (and devious) than you; you win three elections, while your obliging rival remains stupidly waiting for you to leave; you push him to his limit, so that he snaps; and then you can round on him for being sneaky and a killer, with the wished-for consequence: he won't become a PM at all, because he musn't (don't ask me why).

Just my two cents, from across the North Sea

First off, I nearly went to sleep during the interview despite my genuine attempts to pay attention. What is pathetic is that he actually was much more interesting than usual.

I haven't seen much mention of the fact that he dodged all of the coup questions (come on Nick, you usually analyse this stuff to bits!) When asked if he knew about the letters, he could have said (and surely would have if it wouldn't have been a blatant lie) simply "no," but instead he smiled, squirmed, and went into the "Well, of course there were rumours, but..." routine. I took that to mean that he knew about the letters and approved of the whole operation as long as he could not personally be shown to be involved. What do you think his role was?

AT least Gordon Brown offers some hope of getting the labour party back to its socialist principles please god - he's waited long enough for Tony 'I am Tory Plan B' Blair.

Aside from the tedious did he, didn't he, know about the letter and whether or not Gordon Brown was, or was not, a part of the conspiracy to force Tony Blair to concede his tenure as party leader and PM, I was interested to hear GB set out his psephologic stall that the demise of UK politics is due to lack of inclusion of the political process at the local level.
So I (yawn) detect that we are going to be in for another round of 'back to the roots' (yawn) dogma from New(ish) Labour - probably where the Tories are headed too! Why don't they just put Cameron and Brown in the Big Brother House and vote off one of them to spend more time with their family.

I suppose I must be one of the "snorters".
Brown came over as patently false and lacking any ideas beyond tax fiddling/redistribution.
The most telling moment was when Marr challenged him on the lessons of Iraq : answer - we should have planned the transition better, WE SHOULD HAVE MADE SURE THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS IN IRAQ WERE MORE WIDELY SPREAD (I paraphrase) Eh ? what Brownite gobbledygook was that !!
After that, he just ummed and ahhhd for a few moments.

Judging by the Sunday Telegraph, the Tories are now concerned that Johnson might inherit the leadership. they've even started bigging Brown up.
Unbelievable.

Not wanting to be a pedant Nick, but if your going to use such a meaningful word then I think that it is Human - big H not little h. But it is great to see it being used at last, I kind of thought people had forgotten that it is what we are first and foremost.

The notion that Gordon Brown engineered this 'failed coup' is, frankly, crap! GB is rather more intelligent than that, if he'd wanted it so TB's head would have been rolling out of number 10 in a single stroke. Nope this was just inexperienced and over excited juniors going off in their pants, so to speak.

So whom are all of GB's critics proposing as an alternative? Well they haven't made their minds up yet have they, so they go fishing and see if they get a bite. Pathetic really and not indicative of members who are willing to work as a team. GB should shed these obstructive influences when the time comes, I don't want sulking babies getting in the way of serious change.

Serious change that is a must if we Humans are to make it into the next century. Not hyperbole -fact- and deep down you all know it. So lets stop ** around and get to work.

I listened to Gordon attentatively and thought he spoke very well and gave fullsome answers.He has been an excellent chancelor and will make a very good Prime Minister.He has a good track record and way ahead of anyone else for the post.I am looking forward to him taking over as soon as possible.I want Tony Blair to go quickly for the sake of a Labour Government.

I found Brown to be trustworthy, straight and to the point. Whilst the last two points weren't usually his strong point I firmly believe that he is infinitely more trustworthy than Blair - and that it always showed throughout his career.
Maybe he lacks Blair's teflon coated charater or polished but insincere and ingenuine style...but surely thats a good thing?
Its really high time that Britain got someone who focussed on his job and not how his job is seen by people.

Why is it that Brown's sincerity and lack of spin are constantly described as wooden and uncharismatic? People have failed to see how Blair's stubborn, underhanded insistence, together with his flagrant abandonment of all that characterised the Labour Party for the past century has put the party in an increasingly dire position. Brown's likely failure at the next election will be Blair's true legacy.

This man could not be trusted with the management of our gold reserves. Not bad to lose so many hundreds of millions in your first month as Chancellor, eh?

Voting for him to become PM makes about as much sense as selling a house for £250,000, which - under Mr Brown's tax system - because of stamp duty brings less money than if it were sold for £246,000.

I would like to see Gordon Brown taking over from Tony Blair by winning the election contest. But I dont see it happening with all this anti Scottish feeling within the Labour party. He is intellegint compared to other potential candidates who moved from one department to another in the past 9yrs with no signficant contributions to those ministries.

Today he ... answered questions and spoke almost fluent human.

Didn't answer on his policy on ID cards - very significant because it is treasury people who have challenged the economic case for that huge money drain and privacy destroyer whilst GB has claimed the whole thing is nothing new because the National insurance database has been doing the job for years. Marr had asked two at a time and forgot that one.

Does anyone know why GB is the only human around who rests between sentences with his mouth open? It cann't be good for him, and I find it really distracting.

You know, I find it difficult to believe that a man with a small baby at home has the plain testosterone to be being the aggressive schemer the pundits say. Nor to stand up to someone like Bush, who uses alpha male body language on Blair (another man with a baby at home for part of his tenure as PM) whenever they are together, obviously to great effect.

I used to have alot of time for Brown, but his silence on things that really matter to me - the foreign affairs disatsers - mean I won't be rejoining the Labour Party if and when he becomes leader. Aren't there any Labour MPs left who are prespared to put their principles above their careers? Or maybe they just don't have principles to start with!

Can anyone spare a minute to ask this magician of taxation (ruiner of pensions and waster of billions)how he managed to sell Britain's gold reserves for euros at the very lowest price that gold reached in years? (since when it has shown a strong recovery)
Looking at his record in detail it is apparent that he couldn't run a bath.

Is it just me, or did anyone else think significant the remarks Gordon Brown made about 'bringing in talent' into the cabinet from outside the usual places and from outside parliamentary Labour Party? What exactly did he mean by this? Why was this not picked up and pressed further?

Did he mean other parties? Did he mean non-MPs or Lords in the Cabinet? This seems to me to be a hint towards a more US vision of Cabinet - with specialists and advisors (not accountable to Parliament) heading Cabinet positions.

Poor Gordon! The last thing he banked on was the electorate waking up to the fact, a year in advance, that he was banking on being a 'dead cert', he probably hoped for Blair to be hounded from office so that the coast was clear for him to sneak in the back door.

Of course the electorate are hypocrites - we decry the spin, the personality politics. But, faced with a politician with no discernible personality, there are many who are now balking at the suggestion of Britain under Brown. And, to top it off, it looks like the electorate are beginning to favour a wannabe-Blair Tory!

Personally, this is all a cause for a massive groan: exactly what choice will the electorate have at the next election? First off, Cameron: what a greasy slimeball, he almost makes his decrepit party attain the air of being human, rather than the reality of being aliens from the planet simply known to scientists as 1950-s who aim to turn back the clock in this country (I don't know when exactly they want to turn the clock back to, but my guess is that it would be back to a point where pop music had been barely invented). M-Campbell: ha ha! And then Labour: if you are unlucky enough to be a party member then at least you have something resembling a 'say' in the demise of Labour - apparently the 'stereotypical' Labour member wants Brown, however the stereotypical party member has always seemed to be most comfortable with a leader who leads them straight into defeat - to them it probably smacks of 'principled' rather than unrealistic leadership. I dislike Brown, but then who is to give him a run for his money? About the only thing I can say for most of them is that they could compete with Brown in doing a convincing impression of a garden gnome (bit of red on the nose, fishing rod and a little hat - perfect!).

So, I am pessimistic about the future. Blair has rubbished our reputation in world affairs, but I can hardly envisage it any better with Brown or Cameron in the top seat.

It strikes me that Gordon Brown is a little too quick to brush away criticism by appealing to our own "softer side" and invoking his child(ren). First we are told that Tom Watson's bizarre visit to Brown's home immediately before the former's resignation was "just to bestow his best wishes on the baby". Then he explains away his sinister, post-Blair meeting grin as his having been "overcome with happy thoughts of his family" or - as another report had it - that "a reporter had called out something amusing to do with his family". Personally, I find this all to be wearing a little thin.

Nick - surely you are not associating yourselve with these moronic comments , above. They are clearly all writers for the Tory party.

I often wonder if you could be said to be closer to Cameroon than Blair.

Nick Robinson still has not named the Cabinet Minister who he claims told him he would xxxxxxx stop Brown at any cost.Safe to assume now he never existed.Why do The 91Èȱ¬ allow their political editor to act like a tabloid hack?.

The Queen is resigned to spending more time with Gordon Brown. I am resigned to Gordon Brown spending more of my family's money.

One can but pray to be spared.

Perhaps I misheard you Nick reporting Gordon's TUC dinner speech as containing the view that that the Labour Movement had abolished slavery? Perhaps Gordon's education up North forgot to let him that slavery in the Roman Empire was 'washed away by the waters of baptism', that it was Wilberforce and his evangelical 'Clapham Sect' that campaigned for its abolition in Britain way before 'the Labour movement', and that the British Navy in the 19thC stopped Arab slavers turning Africa in a vast slave continent. One could argue that by supporting Stalinism etc 'the Labour Movement' support 20th C forms of oppression and slavery?

Oh god what another Andy Marr love-in aka Andy and Gordon,meet the parents.

Gordon is playing rope a dope with such lightweights as Marr,Humph would have eaten him alive and told him to stop grinning.

If we are going to have serious political debate, we need our state broadcaster to be asking serious questions on a sunday morni
ng.
Do you really think in these buffet politics [pick and choose] times that Goprdon is actually going to say he DOESNT welcome open debate? Or he doesnt like Tony Blair?

Do we really expect him to actually tell the truth about how much our pips are going to squeak when he becomes PM?
And remember - Gordon is even more well versed in the politics of "clintonism" than Blair - he was waltzing around with the democrats in the USA years ago - he just doesnt mention it.

Will Gordon give us the answers we want?

Of course not, not with the state broadcaster turning into Richard and Judy.....

The old Gordon was bad enough, but the "new" Gordon Brown is positively sick-making. Most normal people recognise that losing a baby is heartbreaking, but we grit our teeth and bear it. At the most we share our grief with our closest and dearest. Now, in a cynical attempt at demonstrating his humanity, the new Gordon is all feely-feely, weepy-weepy. Sorry, but it doesn't make one feel sympathetic it just brings on an acute attack of nausea.

So Gordon Brown says that he agrees with Margaret Thatcher on the Union of England and Scotland. Just for information this is what she wrote:
"Already, the constitutional absurdities of what is proposed are clear. The so-called West Lothian question has not been answered—this is, of course, the monstrosity whereby Scottish Westminster MPs would be able to vote on English domestic affairs but not on Scottish domestic affairs. It is but the thinnest edge of the wedge, which will—along with the proposed transformation of the House of Lords into a glorified quango, the sapping away of authority to Brussels and this Government's arrogant disregard for the rights of the House of Commons—ultimately undermine the respect due to our laws.

Over the centuries in the UK, we have created something of which we should be proud, a history to which the Scots have made a special contribution and from which they—like the English—have received enormous benefits. Scottish engineers, scientists, doctors, economists, philosophers, businessmen, soldiers, explorers and statesmen have helped make Britain what it is. And the spread of British civilisation, by trade, by conquest, by settlement, by education and by example has provided Scots with opportunities that would otherwise have been unthinkable.

The UK is that rare thing—a multinational nation state. We can, accordingly, be passionately proud to be Scotsmen. Englishmen, Welshmen and Ulstermen, without any diminution in our pride in being British.

But such ties of unity are inevitably fragile, because they are ultimately emotional; they can, like those of any relationship, unravel; and they may do so with unforeseen consequences. Scottish politicians do Scots no service if they lead them to believe they can always pick and choose the terms under which they wish to remain in the UK. They should not be surprised if the result of doing so is to awaken a resentful English nationalism, which questions other aspects of present arrangements that the Scots themselves take for granted.

I do not believe that most Scots want to end the Union. But separation is the destination towards which the present devolution proposals lead. They represent a negation of our shared history and an abdication of our joint future. Scottish voters can do no greater service to their country than to reject them."

Now that a bit of an about face for Gordon isn't it!!

The old Gordon was bad enough, but the "new" Gordon Brown is positively sick-making. Most normal people recognise that losing a baby is heartbreaking, but we grit our teeth and bear it. At the most we share our grief with our closest and dearest. Now, in a cynical attempt at demonstrating his humanity, the new Gordon is all feely-feely, weepy-weepy. Sorry, but it doesn't make one feel sympathetic it just brings on an acute attack of nausea.

I think that "New Gordon" is simply a case of the leopard trying to change its spots, after the PR people have told him how he needs to look.

How long I wonder before we see Brown walking around with a "PERMA-GRIN" like Blair does these days ?

Personally I think Brown has been a pretty awful Chancelor, and that he will make an even worse PM. I hate to think what will happen to the poorer people of this country if Brown gets his sticky hands on the nation's steering wheel.

I work in the NHS. This week I witnessed a member of staff say she was late because she had to calm down her distressed baby. A little later on the persons manager said she suspected that the member of staff was doing a 'Gordon Brown'.
If Gordon is SO transparent and we are all aware of him.....isn't it for sure we will soon have a Tory government?