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.
Options
"The Lair-bar Party"
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
How different would a Gordon Brown led Labour Party be?
0
Comments
Hopefully not nearly as spin-obsessed.
Would regain some independence from our current master across the Pond.
And a lying war criminal would no longer be in charge of the party and the nation.
Not too bad in all.
"The Lair-bar Party" i love that!
Well there'd be a different Chancellor for a start
No room for Mandy either. Can;t see a downside there.
Eurosceptic as PM. Would suit me.
Less US influence? Maybe, maybe not...
He has been called dour, witty, passionate, nerdy, a control freak, a delegator, charming and charmless. But while millions of words have been devoted to Gordon Brown's prospects of winning the greatest political prize, little attention has been paid to what kind of prime minister he would make. Now, with the chancellor closer to No 10 than at any time since the infamous Granita dinner, Andy Beckett asks the people who know him best how Brown would govern
Browns Britain - Part 1
Browns Britain - Part 2
Its kind of long though
Though i have no British vote myself, I find Robin Cook one of the few who have shown themselves more interested in integrity and the will of the nation than in personal glory. My vote (had I one) would go to him.
he's not popular. he comes across as self-righteous and preachy.
Then there's his divorce
his looks rule him out anyway
(I was referring to cook but KL comes near to all that as well)
His ex-wife might disagree with you on that point.
And he wasn't so ethically minded when he argued for the bombing of Iraq before the latest war...
Perhaps to you...
And who gives a flying toss about looks anyway? I can't think of many lookers in government at present anyway. Blair, Prescott, Blunkett...
And yes, he did support the war at the beginning. Perhaps at the time, like many people in this country, he was naive enough to think the Prime Minister of Britain and the US government would not be so deviant and twisted as to invent threats and WMDs in order to justify imperialistic adventures.
More credit to the man for rectifying his position after it become clear to everyone what load of bollocks the case for war put forward by the Axis of Idiots was.
the voting public, spin-doctors + adverising men
It's academic, Cooks not a front-runner, brown is( until UK shakes of it's Labour yoke anyway)
They should. It highlights that the man doesn't have a much integrity and honesty as he might want you to believe. If he can do that to his wife, then how far would he betray the people?
Or maybe he just believed the intelligance agents at the time...?
Oh, I give him some credit for resigning when he did. Unlike Ms Short.
I still think that his "holier than thou" speech was a little laughable. In the climate it got good reviews but it was a little sanctimonious.
I can show you many in Washington (if not in Westminster) whose professional integrity are sorely lacking despite having stable and loving private lives.
One's family life is no business of the public, their professional integrity is all that need concern others.
Now if you can demonstrate any way in which Robin Cook has lied, cheated, betrayed his office or his constituency, then by all means do so. Citing his failed marriage dissuades me not from my previous assessment insofar as it takes two to make a marriage succeed or fail and its not our business to go snooping about for such unrelated dirt which has nothing to do with his ability as a political leader.
Indeed, and I wouldn't argue with that. But someone who displays a lack of inegrity towards those he loves, is unlikely to show much integrity towards those whose votes he canvasses...
When the person makes their family part of their professional life, then their relationship and treatment of that family become relevant.
It is not different to when the Beckhams promote themselves publically and use the media to promote what they want us to see. When we have a view of the opposite site then we have a right to see that.
But hey, if you don't believe that family life is relevant then I am sure that you will retract any reference you have ever made to GWB and his family's alledged links with OBL and oil...
I think I refered to one such incident above.
If we are to assume that the war in Iraq was illegal, on the ground that no WMD existed, then we should also condemn the previous bombing raid which he supported and argued for.
You cannot tell me that the only source of information available to him was coming from the PM...
Nice attempt at twisting my words to suit your argument, however those are not private family matters but rather issues directly related to the Bush family history of professional self-interests which indeed has a bearing on his professional integrity as leader of the country (and which have in fact led us down the very path of policy choices we currently find the nation embroiled.)
Youll notice I do not base my judgements on any claims about his relationship with his wife, which is precisely the "family life" to which my comments concerning irrelevance were aimed.
As for condemning the previous bombing, i indeed do. However, unlike the majority of those who supported the previous bombing, Cook has shown the strength of character to change his position to one in keeping with international law. A change that we can clearly see Cheney and Bush adamantly holding out against.
Margaret Thatcher. A woman so ugly they turned her down at the Wizard of Oz Wicked Witch casting day.
John "oh yes" Major. About as much sex appealing as a malt vinegar enema.
Tony 'Dumbo' 'Big Tooth' Blair. Not your average Brad Pitt either.
Looks have fuck all to do. Unless you are suggesting that the British electorate are a bunch of fucking thickos. Is that what you're saying?
Private issues should only matter when a crime or conflict of interest arises. Marital problems are of absolute zero importance for the post of Prime Minister. It'd be a different matter if he were, say a minister of some evangelical anti-divorce church naturally.
Thatch had good looks of an old-fashioned nature, Major was a reasonable guy-next door looker, Blair was/is presentable enough.
cook is someone ppl could get used to but would rather not
Sorry to break the bad news Aladdin but the public really is that fickle and Cook's looks would be a hindrance in my opinion, despite his integrity.
I have heard some people- and media- commenting on the possibility of David Blunkett one day being PM. And let's face it, they don't come any uglier than him.
Nor that it should matter. As I said earlier only a nation of thickoes would refuse to elect someone because of their looks.
Wouldnt be suprised about that happening then the way things seem to be going
After all, Churchill wasnt much to look at and certainly a fair degree more gnomish in appearance than Cook.
the propecy is coming true ...the blind leading the blind can only mean everyone falls into the pit.
It's not so much that he is "Ugly" more that - as you say above - he had a gnome-liek quality.
The thing that would guarantee his defeat would be the ridicule factor. Ultimately it's that which cost Kinnock...