uk politics for a change...

[//\/\/]

so; brown's dead in the water - who's next?

it's a bit of a poison chalice, really - labour's run it's governmental course and seems to make gratuitous policy to be seen to be doing something; which leads to bad policies (or worse ones...)

i think miliband might go for it; just for the interim title...

james purnell looks like the annointed one for the future (he's been groomed since before blair took power...) and is too astute to go for it right now i reckon...

in the meantime, i don't see how labour could survive appointing a second unelected prime minister. much as i celebrated the tories getting finally booted; i think the country needs a change. (and we're sounding like u.s politics again!)

[/RAMBLE]

[Deckard]

I think just about every Labour MP knows in their heart that Gordon Broon as PM has become a gargantuan liability.

It's far more than just 'the bottom jaw thing' now.

The dilemma is that removing him would result in a very very messy situation (think what happened with the Kennedy/Ming succession and multiply it by... oooh, 50?) and even with a bright young thing taking the reins, the calls for an immediate general election would be intense, especially second time around. Despite the Blears-esque public pronouncements, they each realise that it would be an election they couldn't possibly win.

As far as I can see, there is literally nothing Labour can now do to get out of this. They have no choice but to endure the next 18 months or so like some slow-motion car crash, watching the economy sink further, losing more data, listening to Gordon bleating on about how he's going to just get on with the job, taking the right long-term decisions for the tough economic conditions ahead, how he's the right man for the job, blah blah blah.... someone wake me up when he's finished.....

Then once the Tories win by their landslide - as I suspect they will - Labour will be left to wait another decade or more for the pendulum to swing back in their direction. By which time.......

It's all really rather shit, isn't it?

[//\/\/]

that or get out quick while the going's bad and shaft them in 4 year's time when you've got a new line-up...

[Deckard]

that's the approach I'm hoping they'll take.

[dubman]

sorry, why is brown dead in the water?
usually the british outrage at its own political heavyweights manages to crawl its way over here so we have a general idea of whats happening, but i havent heard much ruckus about the guy.

[//\/\/]

just lost a by-election in scotland; the 3rd safest labour seat swang 22%...

add that to a government bereft of ideas; and the fact that he's just not the man who nobody feels anything towards... he was very good in charge of finances; or at least made the whole thing look good; but is just unravelling and hasn't the personality to move on. he's a deep thinker; but not blair, for all his foibles...

[Deckard]

plus Labour have now been in power for over a decade. Events that might not have harmed them much in the late 90s are now being viewed through the prism of "this washed out government".

Matthew Parris writing in the Times today makes this point well...

To a much greater extent than is generally acknowledged we use events to justify conclusions that we were already minded to reach. When [opposition leader] David Cameron's bicycle was stolen in Notting Hill this week, the media represented him sympathetically as an ordinary guy doing the shopping, and sharing - albeit involuntarily - the grief that crime causes his fellow citizens.

If Gordon Brown's bike had been nicked in identical circumstances we would have dubbed him a prat for chaining it to a stub from which it could be easily lifted, and described the incident as yet another stumble for a hapless politician who seems incapable even of taking his bike down to the shops. Apparently objective facts can be arranged to point in quite various directions.

[BeautifulBurnout]

I really really hope that Nu Labour have the common sense to get rid of him now, for all our sakes. Not because it means they will win the next election, because I think that is a done deal. But Brown has become so unpopular that it may end up with the Tories having the kind of landslide victory in 2010 that Nu Labour had in 97 - and that is dangerous for democracy, because once again you will have another half-generation of a parliament unable to do anything about the worst excesses of the Executive.

The separation of powers - executive, parliament, judiciary - is supposed to serve as a system of checks and balances to prevent any one area having supremacy. When you have an overwhelming majority in parliament, and MPs who are career politicians because they have to give up any other career to become full-time MPs, you end up with people will rarely go against what their party whip tells them to do. So a cabinet made up of a handful of politicians decides what is "best for the country" and their minions make it so, with virtually no challenge from the House. There may be mutterings for a day or two, but the Bills get passed and they move on to the next thing. (Who is still talking about 42 days detention right now, for example? Despite David Davis's attempts to keep the subject alive in people's minds.)

Combine that with the ability, as was recently demonstrated with the Anonymity of Witnesses business, to rush through legislation at the drop of a hat (thanks to your huge majority) to overturn a House of Lords ruling, and you have an all-powerful executive that can do what the hell it likes with no-one to stop it.

Dictatorship is only a small step away.

So yes. Get rid of Brown now. Bring in someone less mired in the Blair government's failures and hope that over the next two years there will be enough people still prepared to vote Nu Labour to avoid a landslide victory for the Tories and keep some kind of sensible balance in the House of Commons.

[IsiliRunite]

no gov. is legit until you have one single document that dictates what the government is capable of that nobody reads. Moving on!

Just kidding. Labour party can get rid of Brown because Brown wasn't elected in a direct election but was rather a succession of Tony Blair? Answer that question, and correct if it is not the right question.

[BeautifulBurnout]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

no gov. is legit until you have one single document that dictates what the government is capable of that nobody reads. Moving on!

Just kidding. Labour party can get rid of Brown because Brown wasn't elected in a direct election but was rather a succession of Tony Blair? Answer that question, and correct if it is not the right question.

Well in fact, he is legit in the sense that when Bliar () stood down, and Gordon stood to replace him, there was no-one else standing, so the Labour Party voted him in as their leader and thus as Prime Minister.

In the UK we don't vote for the Prime Minister as a separate entity to the other Members of Parliament, so it is the party with the most MPs who gets to be in government, and the leader of that party who gets to be in charge. If that makes any sense.... ahem.

But there is nothing to stop a party in government changing leaders mid-term and thus changing the Prime Minister.