Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Bye Bye Gordon

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hmm. Any ideas who we're likely to get in his place? Also, does this make a joint Labour/Liberal government more or less likely than before? Apologies for the dense nature of my questions, I'm the first to admit to only having a basic knowledge of politics :blush:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    well, at least StarGalaxy can have now that massive wank he's been saving himself up for...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    well, at least StarGalaxy can have now that massive wank he's been saving himself up for...
    :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    well, at least StarGalaxy can have now that massive wank he's been saving himself up for...
    The same kind of massive wank you'd saved up for when Tony Blair resigned, you mean?

    The men in white coats will be on their way to Downing Street to pick him up soon enough.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :wave:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be honest I'd rather Gordon Brown was PM than another Labour MP. At least he stood for election and voters knew what they were getting. I know what the constitutional position is, but to be honest to paraphrase Oscar Wilde to have one PM in without a vote is may be regarded as misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness (or disregard for the voters at least)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    StupidGirl wrote: »
    Hmm. Any ideas who we're likely to get in his place? Also, does this make a joint Labour/Liberal government more or less likely than before? Apologies for the dense nature of my questions, I'm the first to admit to only having a basic knowledge of politics :blush:

    Well David Miliband has got to be a frontrunner. Then he and Clegg can form a media-friendly, cool and trendy, oh so handsome coalition
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be honest I'd rather Gordon Brown was PM than another Labour MP. At least he stood for election and voters knew what they were getting. I know what the constitutional position is, but to be honest to paraphrase Oscar Wilde to have one PM in without a vote is may be regarded as misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness (or disregard for the voters at least)

    So, that rules out Clegg and Cameron too then :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    So, that rules out Clegg and Cameron too then :p

    Weren't they leaders of their parties or did I miss something we knew what we were getting, whether we liked it or not ... though frankly the leader of third place party becoming PM is almost as bad.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Though he hasnt actually gone yet, and they are not looking to have a replacement in till september ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Peter Mandelson for PM, anyone? :eek: :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    After listening to William Hague offer the Lib Dems a referendum on PR I feel my vote has just been stolen.

    I think its a terrible policy and honestly if I'd know the Tories were going as far as offering a referendum I think I'd have voted differently or spoilt my ballot paper
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Peter Mandelson for PM, anyone? :eek: :D

    It'll have to be a stake through the heart next time...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Weren't they leaders of their parties or did I miss something we knew what we were getting, whether we liked it or not ...

    Yeah, but no-one got enough votes to be form a Govt. Any agreement now leads to us having unelected PM.

    As you say in your other post, any agreements being made in those closed rooms, without input from the electorate, will lead to policies which none of us voted for. Either the Tories will cave and give a referendum (which most Tories oppose) or they won't (which most LibDem will oppose)...

    The only real solution here, which fits the mandate from cvoters is minority Tory Govt and that will lead to an autumn election.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    He isn't going yet, he is serving another 4 months before stepping down - to give the party time to adjust to the change, and find a replacement. Not really sure if this is a "Ah fuck it, we didn't win outright so I'm leaving, I want my power back" or a "Well the country seems mad at me, so for the sake of the Labour party, I will resign - with or without influence and rage from the media."
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JavaKrypt wrote: »
    He isn't going yet, he is serving another 4 months before stepping down - to give the party time to adjust to the change, and find a replacement. Not really sure if this is a "Ah fuck it, we didn't win outright so I'm leaving, I want my power back" or a "Well the country seems mad at me, so for the sake of the Labour party, I will resign - with or without influence and rage from the media."
    He's using almost the same strategy that Michael Howard, the then Tory leader, did in 2005. After losing that election, he said that he would resign in September following the party conference where the next Tory leader would be chosen. Had the leadership contest been held on him quitting immediately, most of us would never have heard of David Cameron today. He only emerged a few months into the leadership contest.

    Broon (or should that be Lord Mandelsnake?) is using the same strategy here. He knows just as well as everyone else that the Labour Party has very little real talent in it. The fact they're saying that banana-waving twat David Milibland is the best thing since sliced bread shows how low their stock is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I feel a little sorry for poor old gordon! he wasn't too bad, just didn't have the charisma to win the crowd!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    DavidS wrote: »
    I feel a little sorry for poor old gordon! he wasn't too bad, just didn't have the charisma to win the crowd!

    Politically, he was bad. It's just that his lack of charisma didn't help him either.

    But as a human being, I agree. He's not a bad person.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    David Miliband will be replacing Brown I'm fairly confident. He should have done so before the election. FWIW Brown wasn't as bad as Teagan says he was.

    I think if you disregard the seats for just-one-moment, and look at the number of voters for each coalition:

    Con 10,683,787
    Lab 8,604,358
    Lib 6,827,938
    Other 3.5m

    Which would give:
    Con-Lib gov 17.5m vs 12.1m opposition
    Lab-Lib gov 15.4m vs 14.2m opposition (though the SNP and other nationalist parties are more likely to vote with lab-lib)

    Either in terms of NUMBERS are workable, its just the fucked up electoral system that's broke it. I think the clear mandate of the people is as the SNP says - a progressive government. Far more people voted for left wing parties than for right wing parties, it's just the case that there is only one mainstream centre-right party.

    That's why the tories don't want AV, because labour will choose lib as their second vote, and lib will choose labour. Conservatives will have a strong opposition - lets see them block electoral reform, blame it on lib/lab, call for an election and hope they win a majority to keep the status quo for another 100 years.

    As for unelected PMs, it's not a presidential system, Winston Churchill wasn't elected PM in WW2 but nobody moans about that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Peter Mandelson for PM, anyone? :eek: :D

    Hmm, only if someone declares war on us. Then it could be an advantage having a complete bastard in charge. Although there's always the risk he'd change sides half way through.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    FWIW Brown wasn't as bad as Teagan says he was.

    I think Brown was a better Chancellor than he was a PM. His premiership was dogged by bad decisions even so far back as to hold that reception for Maggie Thatcher. I mean, WTF was THAT all about?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    Politically, he was bad. It's just that his lack of charisma didn't help him either.

    But as a human being, I agree. He's not a bad person.

    Bit of a tragic figure - he desperately wanted the job, but once he got it he was let down by his own flaws. There was lack of charisma, but that was less important than his indecisiveness and inability to grip issues outside his own knowledge base. Hopefully once he's out he won't do a Heath and become an embittered figure, but Callaghan or Major and retire gracefully.

    Of course no person who play's Rugby can be entirely bad...;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    That's why the tories don't want AV, because labour will choose lib as their second vote, and lib will choose labour. Conservatives will have a strong opposition - lets see them block electoral reform, blame it on lib/lab, call for an election and hope they win a majority to keep the status quo for another 100 years.

    To be honest I'm not sure that's true - there's plenty of evidence from the London elections between Boris and Ken that Labour voters did pick Boris as there second preference and vice versa. And lots of the swing in this election was Labour voters last time moving to Conservative

    It's only a very small proportion of activists who hate the Tories/Labour.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    I think Brown was a better Chancellor than he was a PM. His premiership was dogged by bad decisions even so far back as to hold that reception for Maggie Thatcher. I mean, WTF was THAT all about?

    She was an ex-PM, so its not a big surprise that current PMs would invite her. When she was PM she several times hosted Wilson and Callaghan. cameron will probably host Blair and Brown at some time.

    Also I know some people want her airbrushed from history, but she gained more votes than Blair, so she wasn't unpopular - plenty of people were voting for her.

    I also say he wasn't that good a chancellor. In 1997 we had the best position in Europe on pensions, we no longer do. his selling of the gold reserves lost us more than the ERM and even the one good decision to keep us out of the Euro was based on political rather than economic calculations
Sign In or Register to comment.