Heartland

I really need to know...

Am I the last person in the UK who thinks Gordon Brown is the best man for the job?

boudicca wrote:I really need to know...

Am I the last person in the UK who thinks Gordon Brown is the best man for the job?

...with my manscheerums.

The job's irrelevant - everyone is obsessed with internecine warfare and character assassination, when in reality the bloated, inefficient and corrupt mass of HM Government is utterly helpless from top to bottom.

Doesn't matter what two-dimensional party stiff in a suit gets to Number 10, they'll have got there on a flimsy raft consisting of a tiny majority held together with the dribbles of a coalition cabinet all bucking for the job of the man who'll get his feet wet first, last, and always...

a victim of circumstance

@ EB for years I thought a "mahnscheerun" was just something I didn't know about

it is an 'n' not an 'm' as ani fule noe

James Blast wrote:a victim of circumstance

@ EB for years I thought a "mahnscheerun" was just something I didn't know about

it is an 'n' not an 'm' as ani fule noe

[geek]
Exhaustive research indicates that a manscheerum is, in fact, a pipe designed for the smoking of opium, common to the Dutch East Indies (hence the spelling). Given that opium in its raw state could be described as being golden brown in colour, and that it is traditionally smoked in a recumbent position, the line "Lays me down with my manscheerums" is entirely plausible.
[/geek]

removed and placed here

Harrumpf!

ANYWAY back to the matter at hand... would be very interested to hear others' thoughts...

I like jokes about the Stranglers.

boudicca wrote:I really need to know...

Am I the last person in the UK who thinks Gordon Brown is the best man for the job?

Yes, but as a Sisters fan we know that you're not one to follow fashion

Damn straight!

I think he's probably the best out of the 3 main party leaders to get us out of the recession. Sadly that's not saying much.

If the job is stopping in the middle of every sentence to make a face like you're having a stroke, then yes.

Gordon Brown, by all accounts, is suffering from a crippling inability to make a f*cking decision.

Economics is hard, and it's pretty much impossible for a non-specialist to comment on the current situation in any sort of meaningful way. That said, Gordon Brown has had the heaps of praise from some pretty big shots (Paul Krugman most notably), so maybe he is does know what he's doing. I don't know. I sure as hell don't think infighting in the Labour party is helping any.

boudicca wrote:I really need to know...

Am I the last person in the UK who thinks Gordon Brown is the best man for the job?

Maybe second last after a certain G Brown, 10 Downing Street, London.

markfiend wrote:Gordon Brown, by all accounts, is suffering from a crippling inability to make a f*cking decision.

This is what my Batman says as well, but I don't get it. What "decisions" is he supposed to be making? In regard to what? The same expenses scandal that was happily bubbling away under the somehow-clean-as-a-whistle Tony Blair (and, unless I'm mistaken, his Conservative predecessors) and yet has been inextricably associated with him by the Torygraph et al? Despite the fact that the majority of the moat-cleaners and duck-house buyers are Tories, Cameron seems to have come out of this as the Golden Boy while Gordon fights for his political life.
Don't get me wrong, the buck stops with him and he should have done something about it, but why should he be any more associated with corruption than any other leader we've ever had, who has also let this stuff go on?
I think he has shown good, decisive leadership where it really bloody counts - i.e. on the economy, with the bank rescue plan that gave him his "bounce" over the winter, which was copied throughout Europe (with a few notable exceptions). But once again the right wing press seem to have painted this as "Gordon's Recession", completely oblivious to the fact that it is a worldwide downturn.

For what it's worth, I don't believe that the timing of the expenses stories is coincidental. I agree that it seems a little odd that Cameron has squeaked out of it so cleanly.

The indecision thing goes back a long way, apparently his civil servants had to corner him to get him to sign anything even back when he was chancellor.

I don't know, Gordon Brown just never really had "it" -- whatever "it" is -- like Tony did. And, rightly or wrongly, the public see him as a liability; come the next election if Gordon is still at the helm, Labour will lose.

boudicca wrote: I think he has shown good, decisive leadership where it really bloody counts - i.e. on the economy, with the bank rescue plan that gave him his "bounce" over the winter, which was copied throughout Europe (with a few notable exceptions). But once again the right wing press seem to have painted this as "Gordon's Recession", completely oblivious to the fact that it is a worldwide downturn.

So, he's demonstrated himself a competent Chancellor - what's he doing in the pilot's seat?
The man lacks gravitas or charisma - definitely not inspiring loyalty amongst his Cabinet, but as stated elsewhere they're the biggest pack of fruitcakes this side of a maximum security ward at an asylum. He's in the wrong place at the wrong time, with the wrong skills for tackling this.

Luck to him, but of course in this game - you make your own.

markfiend wrote:I don't know, Gordon Brown just never really had "it" -- whatever "it" is -- like Tony did. And, rightly or wrongly, the public see him as a liability; come the next election if Gordon is still at the helm, Labour will lose.

Sadly, it would appear Labour losing is a foregone conclusion... the only real question now is do we want to ride out the worst of the recession with someone new or with someone with Gordon's formidable CV?

As far as having "it" is concerned... I think that's what it comes down to (that and the fact he's Scottish). He has about as much razzmatazz as your grandad's favourite grey cardigan. And that's why I like him. It's not so long since the media was bemoaning "spin" and image-led politics under Blair, now that they've been given someone who is a brain rather than a face they can't stop whining about it!

boudicca wrote:Sadly, it would appear Labour losing is a foregone conclusion...

Hope springs eternal.

The people saying that the Tories would be more of the same (Peter Hitchens springs to mind) will be in for a nasty shock when they're not.

markfiend wrote:I don't know, Gordon Brown just never really had "it" -- whatever "it" is -- like Tony did.

that's the Visoin Thing fiendy

People blame him for the expenses row because he's been one of the most powerful men in the Cabinet for ten years, and self-appointed El Supremo for a few. He could have changed the system but didn't, hence the mud hitting Labour more than the Tory party. Cameron acted, Gordon did his usual disappearing act.

As for the recession, it was Gordon who dismantled the previous financial watchdog replacing it with the tri-partite system, him who de-regulated the City of London further. Him who announced the sell-off of our gold reserves (of course that caused the price to drop), managing to flog them at an almost amusingly low price.
He was the one who allowed buy-to-let landlords to write off their mortgages against tax, causing the housing shortage and inflating the prices, causing the same bubble he had previously blamed Lawson for.
He's the one who's spent more than we can afford giving us a budget deficit of around 30 billion, and that's with his PFI schemes off the books.
His whole economic policy has been to max-out our credit card and hope we carry on earning enough in the future to pay it off.

So, I think it's fair to blame Gordon for some of this, yes. As for his performance as P.M, leaving aside the fact he was one of many Labour M.P's screaming for a general election when Major replaced Maggie, he has no mandate from the public, a lot of his policies don't effect his own constituency, and he's presided over some arse-awful policy decisions (Heathrow/Gurkhas/Lisbon/I.D Cards..) .

I may vote for Cameron simply because there's a slim chance he may do better. With Brown I know exactly what I'm getting.

Brown was incidentally the deciding factor on my E.U vote. I was going to vote Green, but with many predicting suitably dismal results would make Brown quit, I voted UKIP instead.

DeWinter wrote:People blame him for the expenses row because he's been one of the most powerful men in the Cabinet for ten years, and self-appointed El Supremo for a few. He could have changed the system but didn't, hence the mud hitting Labour more than the Tory party. Cameron acted, Gordon did his usual disappearing act.

He has been prime minister for just two years. When he was merely Chancellor was it not Blair who had to bear the ultimate responsibility for what was going on? Do you think it would have gone down well if he had gone on a one-man crusade to sort out expenses while the issues occupying the public and the column inches were the Iraq war and chuffin' immigration? And, likewise, Major and Thatcher, who very probably presided over a similarly corrupt Westminster... do they come out clean?

DeWinter wrote:As for the recession, it was Gordon who dismantled the previous financial watchdog replacing it with the tri-partite system, him who de-regulated the City of London further....

His whole economic policy has been to max-out our credit card and hope we carry on earning enough in the future to pay it off.

If this was coming from someone who was intending for the Socialist Party I could understand it, but do you really think there would have been less deregulation under a Tory government? Gordon's mistake with the economy was being swept along with the New Labour tide, which essentially meant implementing "lite" Thatcherite policies.

boudicca wrote: He has been prime minister for just two years. When he was merely Chancellor was it not Blair who had to bear the ultimate responsibility for what was going on? Do you think it would have gone down well if he had gone on a one-man crusade to sort out expenses while the issues occupying the public and the column inches were the Iraq war and chuffin' immigration? And, likewise, Major and Thatcher, who very probably presided over a similarly corrupt Westminster... do they come out clean?

"Merely" the second most powerful position in British politics? And that's ignoring both Blair and Brown calling theirs a "joint-premiership". Brown has been the most powerful Chancellor this country has seen for a long time. He got that way be expanding his powerbase, using pressure and briefings against opponents, like Frank Field, when they stood in his way of gaining influence in other departments he felt were "his" purview. Not that his allies, like Charlie Whelan fared any better when there was benefit for Brown to be had by ditching them.
Blair occupied himself with foreign policy because he had next to no control over home affairs. I sometimes wonder if Blair hadn't been shackled with Brown he might have actually been what we all hoped for him.

boudicca wrote: If this was coming from someone who was intending for the Socialist Party I could understand it, but do you really think there would have been less deregulation under a Tory government? Gordon's mistake with the economy was being swept along with the New Labour tide, which essentially meant implementing "lite" Thatcherite policies.

Hard to say, they haven't been in power for 12 years, Labour has. The Tory Party were against changing the role of the BoE, so the system Brown set up couldn't have come to being. And under Kenneth Clarke the UK was running a budget surplus.
To preside over a high-tax nation with a colossal deficit and still end up with crumbling infrastructure, closed hospitals, and an education system churning out illiterates is a real talent.

I admit the personal level of the attacks on him are in bad taste, his personal life has had some real tragedy in it over the past few years. But he's out of his depth, and his choices as Chancellor have showed themselves up as disastrous long-term.

So no, he's not the best man. Despite thinking the LibD's soppy, Vince Cable has proved a far greater level of economic sense than Brown on his worst day.

boudicca wrote: He has been prime minister for just two years. When he was merely Chancellor was it not Blair who had to bear the ultimate responsibility for what was going on? Do you think it would have gone down well if he had gone on a one-man crusade to sort out expenses while the issues occupying the public and the column inches were the Iraq war and chuffin' immigration? And, likewise, Major and Thatcher, who very probably presided over a similarly corrupt Westminster... do they come out clean?

"Merely" the second most powerful position in British politics? And that's ignoring both Blair and Brown calling theirs a "joint-premiership". Brown has been the most powerful Chancellor this country has seen for a long time. He got that way be expanding his powerbase, using pressure and briefings against opponents, like Frank Field, when they stood in his way of gaining influence in other departments he felt were "his" purview. Not that his allies, like Charlie Whelan fared any better when there was benefit for Brown to be had by ditching them.
Blair occupied himself with foreign policy because he had next to no control over home affairs. I sometimes wonder if Blair hadn't been shackled with Brown he might have actually been what we all hoped for him.

boudicca wrote: If this was coming from someone who was intending for the Socialist Party I could understand it, but do you really think there would have been less deregulation under a Tory government? Gordon's mistake with the economy was being swept along with the New Labour tide, which essentially meant implementing "lite" Thatcherite policies.

Hard to say, they haven't been in power for 12 years, Labour has. The Tory Party were against changing the role of the BoE, so the system Brown set up couldn't have come to being. And under Kenneth Clarke the UK was running a budget surplus.
To preside over a high-tax nation with a colossal deficit and still end up with crumbling infrastructure, closed hospitals, and an education system churning out illiterates is a real talent.

I admit the personal level of the attacks on him are in bad taste, his personal life has had some real tragedy in it over the past few years. But he's out of his depth, and his choices as Chancellor have showed themselves up as disastrous long-term.

So no, he's not the best man. Despite thinking the LibD's soppy, Vince Cable has proved a far greater level of economic sense than Brown on his worst day.