Brown on the ropes? - Page 8

**Damien** · 31-07-2008, 18:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Thats why it is going to take a lot more then a change of leader for labour to turn things round we don't like brownshirt and we don't like any of the alternatives.

I quite like Miliband, if he was leader, turned out to be fairly brave and enacted good polices instead of stupid ones I would vote for Labour.

31-07-2008, 18:52

Personally i have always found him to be non commital on things when directly asked and a bit slimey but then maybe i am just and old fart lol.

Osem · 31-07-2008, 20:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

I quite like Miliband, if he was leader, turned out to be fairly brave and enacted good polices instead of stupid ones I would vote for Labour.

You have to wonder about his morals and/or judgement don't you I mean whilst trying to dig himself out of the mire he's just been claiming that Brown can still lead them to victory.....

I reckon most people would have a lot more respect for Milliband if he simply told the truth and acknowledged what we already know - that Brown is a total loser who's on the verge of destroying New Labour and must be replaced if they are to have any chance of winning the next election.

This makes interesting reading:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/

---------- Post added at 20:53 ---------- Previous post was at 20:49 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

The problem is, if they ditch Brown, they won't have another two years. To replace the PM twice without seeking a new mandate through the ballot box would be a step too far for a great many MPs, for the Press and a lot of the public. The country would become ungovernable because it would become impossible for the Government to get any messages out, or launch anything, without getting hectored over the date of the next election. If Brown goes (which is sadly unlikely), then there will have to be an election no later than next May.

I don't disagree entirely but a hell of a lot of what they've been up to over the last few years has been beyond the pale but that hasn't stopped them doing it and, sadly, getting away with it

I reckon they're so desperate now they'd rather take that chance than stick with their version of King Canute and seal their fate.

punky · 31-07-2008, 22:43

I can't think of David Milliband without thinking of him on Headcases. Classic.

Same with Gordon Brown too, funnily enough.

Chrysalis · 01-08-2008, 19:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Under our constitution i don't think the queen can force an election and frankly thats not her style.

Im not sure but she can sack the PM on a whim if she chooses to, the population wrongly think she has very little power when she still has the ultimate power.

**Chris** · 01-08-2008, 23:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Im not sure but she can sack the PM on a whim if she chooses to, the population wrongly think she has very little power when she still has the ultimate power.

The Monarch's powers, when exercised directly rather than by ministers acting on her (his) behalf, are exercised on the advice of ministers. In the case of the dissolution of Parliament (which is how a general election is triggered), she acts on a request from the Prime Minister.

She can't do otherwise, because it is part of her modern constitutional role to respect the democratic will of her people. It would provoke a constitutional crisis were she to try to dissolve Parliament other than on the request of the PM. I would guess the only time she could get away with it, would be if the ruling party itself were itself acting in a way likely to wreck the constitution (yes, I know Blair can be accused of that, but I'm talking really, really wrecking it, e.g. 1930s Germany).

There are one or two very rare occasions when the Monarch acts without 'advice'. One of those is when she invites someone to become Prime Minister. She has to choose the one who, in her judgement, is most likely to command a majority in the Commons. In practice it is usually very obvious who she has to choose - whoever won the election - but if there is a hung Parliament, then she has a little more latitude.

**Damien** · 01-08-2008, 23:37

It would go to the leader whose party got the most seats or, in the unlikely event of a draw in terms of seats, whose party won the popular vote? Wouldn't it?

**Chris** · 01-08-2008, 23:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

It would go to the leader whose party got the most seats or, in the unlikely event of a draw in terms of seats, whose party won the popular vote? Wouldn't it?

The popular vote in the country has got precious little to do with it. The job goes to whomever the Monarch thinks is most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons. There is an argument that the leader of the largest minority party should get first dibs on the job, but there is no rule that says this has to be the case.

slowcoach · 01-08-2008, 23:54

Labour need another term, they still have thousands of PC laws to get through and now that the CCTV pilot in Manchester has proved that drunken yobs are oblivious to them Labour will have to go ahead regardless, installing them throughout the rest of England.

**Chris** · 01-08-2008, 23:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowcoach

Labour need another term, they still have thousands of PC laws to get through and now that the CCTV pilot in Manchester has proved that drunken yobs are oblivious to them Labour will have to go ahead regardless, installing them throughout the rest of England.

Labour need another term, naturally enough - they exist to take and hold power, so yes, of course they do. But does the country need another term of Labour? I think not.

ginge51 · 02-08-2008, 02:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Im not sure but she can sack the PM on a whim if she chooses to, the population wrongly think she has very little power when she still has the ultimate power.

Basically, another reason our "monachy" is not needed no more.
They do nothing whatsoever for the people there supposed to serve.

02-08-2008, 13:16

Politics and Polititians drive me crazy! I'd rather have nothing to do with any of them. No matter how they look and sound, they'll still do a crap job at looking after the people and their country!

Osem · 03-08-2008, 10:06

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7539364.stm

According to the article Harriet Harman reckons:

"When you face these kinds of global problems you need as prime minister someone who is respected,...."

"....Someone whose hard work and ability over the last 11 years has made Britain better off.

"Gordon Brown is the right person for the job."

What planet is she on? Gordon Brown is largely the reason we're in this appalling mess and whose respect does he have ?? Certainly not the public's it seems....

Note the clever use of the word 'global' in the context of problems - they wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea and blame them would they .......

Osem · 03-08-2008, 21:36

Seems like some of her colleagues don't agree with Ms Harman....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7539858.stm

There's an interesting bit about Blair's leaked comments on Brown's leadership at the end of the piece.

**Damien** · 03-08-2008, 22:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

Seems like some of her colleagues don't agree with Ms Harman....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7539858.stm

There's an interesting bit about Blair's leaked comments on Brown's leadership at the end of the piece.

What I find interesting is that Blair is alleged to have written those comments during September before everything went wrong for Brown. You wonder if Brown was made aware of the feelings at the time..