91Èȱ¬

No-one wants the Labour leadership until after the election's been lost. Then the party can be seen to sweep away the dead wood (Gordon Brown), pin the blame on him for everything including losing the election, and start afresh.

Anyone volunteering their leadership candidacy now would instantly be a dead man/woman walking.

So as usual the labour party, and gordon in particular put themselves ahead of the entire british population.

When New-labour came to power in 97, I felt somewhat apprehensive, but thought that a change was needed. I never contemplated that we were electing a government whom in the future many people would sincerely believe would call a state of emergency to stay in power, and yet today you can suggest that with a straight face.

People voted for a fairer society and got the most authoritarian goverment this country has probably ever had.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

As far as I can tell, Brown is the only remotely popular character in the labour party. He is not the problem, the country has no confidence in those around him.

Nick:

That is what they called a lucky day and "semi" good news for Gordon Brown, but, I would send out the great news yet...Since, there is always another shoe to fall on this situation.

-Dennis Junior

"When the Cabinet met this morning, members looked at each other aware that many of them do not believe that they can win the election with Gordon Brown as their leader."

Well there's clearly one person who disagrees with you Mr GoBro himself, but then he still believes that Britain's problems were caused by the USA housing market and absolutely nothing to do with him.

A couple of weeks ago at Copenhagen he asserted that people who disagreed with him about global warming were "Flat Earthers". As far as the reality of politics is concerned GoBro is a reality denyer and therefore a flat earther. His Cabinet meanwhile are a bunch of plonkers.

When the Cabinet met this morning, members looked at each other aware that many of them do not believe that they can win the election with Gordon Brown as their leader.

Do they believe they could win it with a different leader? Probably not.

One of the few things which might cause a slight swing back towards Labour as the election approaches is a reluctance to allow the inexperienced Cameron and Osborne to take over in such difficult conditions. By ditching Brown, they would lose this potential advantage. And if they switched leader and lost the election, they would begin the next five years with a leader who had already failed. I think there is still some talent on the Labour benches that hasn't been poisoned by grievance and infighting, but it would be better to let this emerge during a process of post-defeat reflection and renewal, rather than unceremoniously shoving it into the ring just in time for a knock-out.

Seeing as the previous topic's been closed, but someone asked me a question on it, and it's also relevant to this topic....

re: 480. At 2:31pm on 08 Jan 2010, IPGABP1 wrote:

"No478Getrid,
Do you agree with the view that only politically thick individuals think that in the UK the people elect a Prime Minister?"

I agree that only thick individuals think that an election where you're the only candidate because you've bullied/threatened everyone else to stand down and to not stand against you is not a valid/acceptable election.

We don't have a direct vote for our PM, everybody knows that. We do, however, expect our PM to have been elected as leader via an acceptable democratic process and not to have bullied his way into being the only candidate.

I've never met anyone who thinks that Brown has any democratic legitimacy as leader/PM. I'm assuming that only die-hard pro-labour/brown people believe he's got legitimacy.

According to the letter of the law, technically he was "democratically elected". But the way that it happened means that realistically/practically/morally, he succeeded via a coup and has no democratic legitimacy whatsoever.

Major was elected in a valid election with other candidates. His party also backed him following his "put up or shut up" argument. He was also elected (albeit indirectly) by the public at the election.

Pro-labour/pro-brown people should stop trying to argue about the letter of the law, because we all know that technically it was "valid". It's not the technicality that we're talking about, it's the way that it all happened and the fact that nobody was allowed to stand against him.

What you're saying is equivalent to arguing:

"Mr x was driving at 30mph. The speed limit was 40mph. Therefore he didn't break the law when he deliberately drove his car at full-pelt into a bunch of schoolkids."

It is almost painful watching the dying twitches of this government as it tries to survive as long as possible. There is no way it can operate for the good of the country anymore. Mr Brown should call the election as soon as possible and put us all (and him) out of misery.

Nick, The Cabinet 6 and Mandy got what they wanted. Ed Balls put back in his box, Gordon told to stop the silly class war and to concentrate, not on the labour heartlands; but on the middle classes where Labour support is on the wane and to stop dressing up, cut backs as investments.
Brown has brought this upon himself by going along with Balls` way out ideas. What Mandy wants, is what Mandy gets and that is why he is grinning for ear to ear. Not like the false smirk Gordon seems to have adopted recently. He can no more do a smile than tell a joke. The moral of the story for NuLabour - don`t let Mandy out of the country. Balls must have shot in to see Gordon as soon as Mandy`s car left for the airport.

From what I can see the Hoon & Hewitt ruse had an impact as the government have no option but to work together now.

That's done away with the tedious business of voting in a secret ballot on Monday and having to stomach the consequences, as suggested by the H&H ruse.

All behind the arrowhead for the sake of a letter from two old stagers putting the cat amongst the pigeons.

Now Labour know they have to work together when they were not before the H & H ruse was launched.

A rehearsal needed 'We alll siiinnng together...'

It worked, didn't it? - Just not in the way that was expected.

This whole episode demonstrates that the Labour Party is full of incompetents and cowards.

It would be amusing but for the fact that this shambles is in charge of the country.

It will be interesting after the election if as most pundits forecast the Tories win, because under labour party rules, the sitting MP's, in a ballot select the shadow cabinet (excluding leader and dep leader).

So have some of the talent alluded to by others blown their chances and are destined for years in the wilderness, because of their treatment of some of these backbenchers and may well lose a popularity vote within their own party, David Milliband or should that be Milli'banana' senior being one if he fails to get either top job.

"People vote Labour in with empty heads, and out with empty pockets"

So goes the saying I heard a couple of years ago.

I was never a fan of the Tories, and yearned to see a Labour government, but under Brown that's all changed and I can see myself voting Conservative by virtue of them not being led by Gordon Brown.

I can say without doubt that there is absolutely nothing that can be done that will make me think Brown should be PM. I actually find myself not even listening to what he says anymore.

Is it time for a Tory government? Probably not. Is it time for a change? Most definitely.

largley unimportant to the many struggling to survive the recession. Gordon brown himself probably a decent man compared to many in his cabinet.
The real problem is that there is no drive towards a real change of politics and thinking (thinking outside the box). Politics today is so narrow and provides little hope for the huge changes society needs to become more moral and show greater social intelegence.
Such are the dire economic choices on offer within the narrow framework of todays capitalism, only further misery lies ahead. Past boasts of economic superiority are dashed - Britain was in the 'economic vanguard' according to Gordon Brown and Tony Blair before him - as the country has now fallen economically behind even crisis-ravaged Italy! Normally, the capitalists promise pain today and 'jam' tomorrow. But the Pre-Budget Report of chancellor Alastair Darling promises us not just pain today but pain tomorrow, stretching into an indefinite future. Not to mention what the cameron crew may have in store for us.
The official parties vary only by degrees, with New Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats presenting themselves as different 'management teams' for the bosses' Great Britain plc. .
They also chorus that it is us, the working class and the poor, who will have to foot the bill. But if we had a democratically planned, socialist economy in place, rather than cuts, the increased production would mean a massive expansion of public spending on transport, education, social services, etc. What stands in the way is the naked lust for profits by the bosses.
Im sure in the future historians will look back at this period of capitalism and reflect on how imoral and unintelegent it was. Perhaps how we see the romans..as intelegent people but barbaric. Perhaps if everyone could walk in the shoes of the masses suffering during this recession, greed may be taken over by compassion. But charity only touches the surface. Only a strong truely socialist government could implement this as capitilism will only encourage further greed and continue the dire global mess were all in! So Brown may have survived the coup but in reality is he really running the country anyway. over to u mr or mrs "im alright jack" "socialism is the politics of envy" "look at stalin" "we need the greedy to employe the poor" "maggie she was a god"

Poster No 1 (Lime Candy) has given a spot on analysis. As the sense of this argument is so evident, the real puzzle is the thinking behind the Hoon-Hewitt initiative.

Has it occurred to anyone else that Milord Mandelson could be behind all this. What a wonderful way to get the public's eye off the real issues, and give the impression of substantial support for Gordon Brown. This was never really going to fly, so what other reason could there be?

Have no sympathy for Brown despite thinking he's not a bad PM.

He spent years doing the same to Blair as his cabinet and these plotters are now doing to him, this is quite simply a taste of his own medicne. And a well deserved one at that.

How many times did he stay silent for hours to see if a plot would work before lending limited support to the PM? At least 4 I can remember. One of the main reason the public stopped trusting labour was because of the contstant briefing against each other of the brown and blairites, somthing he started. He helped foster an atmosphere of rebelion amongst certain mp's, and those same mp's found they liked the taste of it and are still doing it.

It took Brown 10 years to do it despite their being an obvious candidate to take over from Blair (him) does anyone really think it'll be quicker this time? Not without an election defeat thats for sure.

I agree with Mayco. Gordon Brown is not the problem. It is the ignorance of all the voters who fail to recognise his genius that is the issue here.

The time for ditching Brown was last summer. They didn't do it. The only good reason to do it now, with the Election looming right up, would be if there were someone in the wings so incredibly popular (in both party and country at large) that they could turn things around for Labour within just a couple of months. And there isn't.

12. At 4:52pm on 08 Jan 2010, MaxSceptic wrote:
This whole episode demonstrates that the Labour Party is full of incompetents and cowards.
------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately (?) it seems that most of the population think that what you describe there could be applied to every political party.
Just add "and they are all liars" and no wonder turnout is so low in all elections.

'Global' - blame anyone but me - Brown has problems with his excuses at this chilly time. The Labour infighting is strictly 'local' & the cold weather is coming from the east. Over the last 2 years he has blamed all the country's woes on the United States - let's see him try to (s)pin the blame on them for these difficulties.

20. At 5:08pm on 08 Jan 2010, sagamix

What, not even the convicted criminal, H-H?

What a mess New Labour is in.They try to ditch their leader weeks before the start of a general election.The plot lacks focus because nobody wants to assume the leading role in ousting Brown.The plotters hesitate because they fear Brown won't go quietly.And when it fizzles out most of the cabinet take hours to put out messages of support for the PM.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I wish people would stop saying Brown has no mandate. No Prime Minister ever has a mandate, only political parties do. We voted Labour last time and so whoever they elect as leader is the correct Prime Minister. Post #8 can you run it by me how Major had a mandate when Brown does not simply because the Conservative party had their own election. The fact that Brown was the unanimous choice of the Labour party gives him more validity, not less. And you need to explain how he was voted indirectly by the public - cannot see that at all (prior to the 92 election of course)

From Nick's blog:
'Both though were said to be very cautious about a challenge and to believe that "overwhelming force" would be necessary to remove the prime minister.'



' Overwhelming force' !! Not even a thermal lance and a bulldozer will shift GB.
I'm not even sure losing the election will cause him to give up the tenure of No.10 until he is physically dragged kicking and screaming from the place.

I don't know why everyone is getting so bothered about this.
All the main protagonists are disgruntled ex ministers pushed out by Brown and seeking a bit of revenge in the petty school yard way that unfortunatley sums up the Houses of Parliment in this Country. Unfortunately for us instead of it being about whos the most popular, gets the most sweets etc. etc. the stakes are somewhat bigger and have a real impact on peoples lives.
Also anyone with half a brain can see that it is the power hungry snake Mandelson who controls Labour. Just look at how many committee's he heads to see where the real power lies. He is the only one standing between the rest of the Labour and GBO. it seems to be what mandy says goes in my opinion.

As the roads get worse, the Government orders Local Councils to REDUCE gritting.

Jeeez!! Is Gordon trying to lead the World in increasing casualty figures.

yellow @ 23

"not even the convicted criminal, HH?"

I have to concede that, despite the boost to her street cred which a minor motoring offence undoubtedly provides, the majority of ordinary, run of the mill people are not quite ready for Harriet. And by the time they are, she'll be pruning roses. It's a shame. One has to be realistic though.

20. sagamix

"...The time for ditching Brown was last summer..."

The time will be this spring. The electorate will be larger than the couple of hundred well looked after Labour MPs.

If Brown had any ambition to be elected on the basis of a truly popular mandate he'd have called the election in 2007. That was his best chance. Now we have seen what a Brown premiership brings.