Gordon Brown
- Thread starter harry
- Start date
EC1
On a break
i don't think anyone really cares anymore about politicians tbh
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
Mike Dillon's let himself go a bit.
These are the 'Blair babes' aren't they? I'm afraid they're collectively setting women and politics back a bit. I think its hysterical, but it clearly points to 'something being strange about Gordon'
Fear not ladies
Britain will have its second female Prime Minister by Monday week
Fear not ladies
Britain will have its second female Prime Minister by Monday week
You cant mean Harperson surely???
Not a chance....
She would be a disasterous leader. with a second change of leader within one term, they would be mre or less compeled to go to the country. Would the backbencer want Hapless to compound the on going disaster?
Not a chance....
She would be a disasterous leader. with a second change of leader within one term, they would be mre or less compeled to go to the country. Would the backbencer want Hapless to compound the on going disaster?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...aroline-Flint-resignation-letter-in-full.html
Bloody hell...She doesnt exactly hold back
Bloody hell...She doesnt exactly hold back
M
martin
Guest
I wish they would stop telling people what they're thinking. I.E. "people want us to run the country" - no they don't, the 'people" want an election.
betsmate
At the Start
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 5,752
You think she'll beat Alan Sugar?
Cracking photograph of Flint!!! The ultimate female vampress.
I tell you what, there'll be a late night sitting if all these ministers insist on making resignation speaches in the commons!!!
Very disappointed in Flints attempts to turn this into a gender issue (though not surprised). This isn't a gender issue at all and not for the first time the paranoid feminist is seeing things that probably aren't really there. My experience of such things and similar, is that if people get over-looked for promotion or excluded from an inner circle due to perceivbed ability, there are certain 'types' who are very quick to run off and play a gender or race card as a way of explaining it, as they don't want to face up to what might be a more unpalatable truth. These is a group of aspiring professional MP's let us not forget who were only to happy to trade off Brown for such time as he was masterminding the unprecedented levels of sustained economic growth when it suited them. And let us not forget also, when the Tories were accussing him of pinching all their ideas!!!
Brown's always had his cronies and as PM that is his perogative (though a dangerous one). She along with all the others were only too happy to accept an offer to join the cabinet when it suited them, and now when things are bumpy they're calculating their career might be sustained by jumping ship on the excuse that Gordon's a chauvinist. Thank God the Blair babes never had to lead us in a war situation. This isn't about some great ideological stance of principal aka Robin Cook, this is just pure personal and the idea that someone doesn't rate someone else.
Even the Tories who knew John Major was a dead duck didn't show him this level of disloyalty and two facedness.
yes I do, and where as I agree with your assessment, I think it's a distinct possibility for reasons I'll post up later. In fact I think it's a probability
It actually reminds me of the final scenes that befell another Scottish leader
Bring me no more reports; let them fly all:
Till Birnam wood remove to Dunsinane,
I cannot taint with fear. What's the boy Cameron?
Was he not born of woman? The spirits that know
All mortal consequences have pronounced me thus:
'Fear not, Gordon; no man that's born of woman
Shall e'er have power upon thee.' Then fly, false thanes,
And mingle with the English epicures:
As Deputy Leader Harmen would inherit. I doubt the Labour party has the time, nor would the country particularly appreciate them wasting 3 months selecting a leader, only to then have to face the country a few months later. If they're going to roll the dice they might as well do it now and do it quickly. To some extent Brown's gambling on this to keep him in office, Harmen might also be gambling on it too. She might be able to persuade them of the tactical imperative not to drag the whole thing out through conference and simply resort to the constitution on the understanding that she'll have to face the country in a maximum of 49 weeks anyway.
This particular revolt has a whiff of female rebellion about it. If this spreads into popular opinion, there is no way on earth Labour can face the election with a Prime Minister denounced as not trusting 52% of the electorate. It might be that a softer face could help pull back some of the damage done to the female vote (though I doubt it myself)
Brown's clearly toast, and Harmen probably realises this will be her only chance if she can pull it off. History was never going to present her a set of ideal circumstances as she would never have been a candidate of choice, and I'm sure she realises that its now or never. As things stand she'll be in opposition for a minimum of 5 years and too old by then to acheive the highest office. The baton will pass a generation when Labour lose the general election, so to some extent she has nothing to lose.
There's a few Labour MP's who might also be calculating that their own prospects of saving their bacon would be better served by a female London MP, rather than a dour faced and terminally damaged Scot. They might also be calculating that for all her lack of gravitas, she'd be no less a match for someone like Cameron who equally lacks substance and hasn't been exposed to the scrutiny that an election campaign would involve. It would certainly give the Tories something new to think about, and might momentarily wrong foot them a bit. She's much more experienced than him afterall, and for all her 'pet obsessions' (which will equally turn off 48% of the electorate if they're allowed to surface) she's not without a brain and should be able to hold her own in debate. The Tories would experience a brief period of re-adjustment and having to re-focus their own sights in terms of target and tactics, and she might make a bold move thus to try and go for an Autumn poll.
Harmen was known to be plotting about 3 months ago and even denied that she had any aspirations to seek the highest office (a sure sign that she had). I'd be very interested to know who these spate of resignees voted for in the deputy leadership contest?. It looks a bit co-ordinated to me, and she has been noticably John Majoresque absent in reaffirming her support for the Prime Minister. Neither has she joined the exodus either. She's steering a middle line and doesn't want to be seen as the wrecking ball.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that she's cooked something up and will gamble that she has nothing to lose, and that with the constitution on her side she could inherit, unify, and either call a snap election to capitalise or limit damage on the back of a honeymoon. Alternatively some major crisis might break that allows her to 'get lucky'. Any co-operative South american dictatorships willing to oblige?
Bring me no more reports; let them fly all:
Till Birnam wood remove to Dunsinane,
I cannot taint with fear. What's the boy Cameron?
Was he not born of woman? The spirits that know
All mortal consequences have pronounced me thus:
'Fear not, Gordon; no man that's born of woman
Shall e'er have power upon thee.' Then fly, false thanes,
And mingle with the English epicures:
As Deputy Leader Harmen would inherit. I doubt the Labour party has the time, nor would the country particularly appreciate them wasting 3 months selecting a leader, only to then have to face the country a few months later. If they're going to roll the dice they might as well do it now and do it quickly. To some extent Brown's gambling on this to keep him in office, Harmen might also be gambling on it too. She might be able to persuade them of the tactical imperative not to drag the whole thing out through conference and simply resort to the constitution on the understanding that she'll have to face the country in a maximum of 49 weeks anyway.
This particular revolt has a whiff of female rebellion about it. If this spreads into popular opinion, there is no way on earth Labour can face the election with a Prime Minister denounced as not trusting 52% of the electorate. It might be that a softer face could help pull back some of the damage done to the female vote (though I doubt it myself)
Brown's clearly toast, and Harmen probably realises this will be her only chance if she can pull it off. History was never going to present her a set of ideal circumstances as she would never have been a candidate of choice, and I'm sure she realises that its now or never. As things stand she'll be in opposition for a minimum of 5 years and too old by then to acheive the highest office. The baton will pass a generation when Labour lose the general election, so to some extent she has nothing to lose.
There's a few Labour MP's who might also be calculating that their own prospects of saving their bacon would be better served by a female London MP, rather than a dour faced and terminally damaged Scot. They might also be calculating that for all her lack of gravitas, she'd be no less a match for someone like Cameron who equally lacks substance and hasn't been exposed to the scrutiny that an election campaign would involve. It would certainly give the Tories something new to think about, and might momentarily wrong foot them a bit. She's much more experienced than him afterall, and for all her 'pet obsessions' (which will equally turn off 48% of the electorate if they're allowed to surface) she's not without a brain and should be able to hold her own in debate. The Tories would experience a brief period of re-adjustment and having to re-focus their own sights in terms of target and tactics, and she might make a bold move thus to try and go for an Autumn poll.
Harmen was known to be plotting about 3 months ago and even denied that she had any aspirations to seek the highest office (a sure sign that she had). I'd be very interested to know who these spate of resignees voted for in the deputy leadership contest?. It looks a bit co-ordinated to me, and she has been noticably John Majoresque absent in reaffirming her support for the Prime Minister. Neither has she joined the exodus either. She's steering a middle line and doesn't want to be seen as the wrecking ball.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that she's cooked something up and will gamble that she has nothing to lose, and that with the constitution on her side she could inherit, unify, and either call a snap election to capitalise or limit damage on the back of a honeymoon. Alternatively some major crisis might break that allows her to 'get lucky'. Any co-operative South american dictatorships willing to oblige?
Last edited:
Irish Stamp
Forum Moderator
Labour can't be trusted - they're an absolute sham.
I'm not sure who should run the country, as far as I'm concerned it's anyone but the BNP.
I'm not sure who should run the country, as far as I'm concerned it's anyone but the BNP.
Disagree with certain elements there warbler
She is without a brain. Shes dim
apart from that, i simply do not believe that she will have the party's support simply because of the perceived female vote. And talking of feminism, shes rammed down that our throats over the last few montsh with some useless unwelcome badly timed initiatives and daft statements ("no financial crisis if women were running banks" etc...FFS)
I tend to agree alittle about Flint. it is hardly a secret that Brown operates damaging cliques (ultimately the cause of his downfall) and you know what to expect. But on other hand, he should have ditched that approach...
the feminist card is a poor one too and many would counter that women have had some very handly leg ups (leg overs?...) on the way to posts that have may be beyond their capablities
Brown is so like Nixon in many ways. Imagined and real enemies everywhere and goverment by suspicion but fundamentally someone who genuinely wanted to be a true public servent rather than a glory seeker. A great pity in so many ways....
She is without a brain. Shes dim
apart from that, i simply do not believe that she will have the party's support simply because of the perceived female vote. And talking of feminism, shes rammed down that our throats over the last few montsh with some useless unwelcome badly timed initiatives and daft statements ("no financial crisis if women were running banks" etc...FFS)
I tend to agree alittle about Flint. it is hardly a secret that Brown operates damaging cliques (ultimately the cause of his downfall) and you know what to expect. But on other hand, he should have ditched that approach...
the feminist card is a poor one too and many would counter that women have had some very handly leg ups (leg overs?...) on the way to posts that have may be beyond their capablities
Brown is so like Nixon in many ways. Imagined and real enemies everywhere and goverment by suspicion but fundamentally someone who genuinely wanted to be a true public servent rather than a glory seeker. A great pity in so many ways....
I think Cameron would wipe the floor with her in a debate. Apart from being taht bit sharper and with a degree of wit, he would certainly (beyond the chamber and for the public at large) come across as a far warmer personality that Harperson. Not difficlut and unusual for a tory of course, but very significant
on a more maudlin note, his recent tragedy would present him as having emotional substance (the way he talked about it and near worshipped the NHS was impressive on many levels)
Johnson is labours big hope. Slight question mark as to whether he wants it enough but he should have very decent voter appeal
on a more maudlin note, his recent tragedy would present him as having emotional substance (the way he talked about it and near worshipped the NHS was impressive on many levels)
Johnson is labours big hope. Slight question mark as to whether he wants it enough but he should have very decent voter appeal
M
martin
Guest
Of course Cameron would kill them all in a debate. He has a more balanced outlook and personality that half the new cabinet put together!
Labour have run out of ideas.
Labour have run out of ideas.
Last edited:
Latest news is that Caroline Flint told Gordon Brown that if he did not give her a Cabinet post she would stamp her feet and scream and scream and scream until she was sick .
Her behaviour is contemptible - though Hazel Blears tops it and she should watch out - the general opinion in the Labour Party up here is that she has behaved abominably - I would not be surprised to see her deselected - ah well it would give her time to spend with her untaxed capital gains windfall .
Her behaviour is contemptible - though Hazel Blears tops it and she should watch out - the general opinion in the Labour Party up here is that she has behaved abominably - I would not be surprised to see her deselected - ah well it would give her time to spend with her untaxed capital gains windfall .
I wouldn't over-look the fact that Caroline Flint was also Hazel Blears campaign manager for her hysterical attempt to become Deputy Leader (she was the first one eliminated)
The dear old Labour party have mysteriously withdrawn the page of who nominated who, but of those who've chosen this week to leave or resign, Hoon, Hewitt and Hodge were all Harman supporters so far as I can gather. The Blears/ Flint axis appears to be a separate entity, although John Hutton supported Madam Duracel.
Parnell supported Johnson and Tom Watson Crudas.
I can't find any reference to Bev Hughes or Jaquci Smith
The dear old Labour party have mysteriously withdrawn the page of who nominated who, but of those who've chosen this week to leave or resign, Hoon, Hewitt and Hodge were all Harman supporters so far as I can gather. The Blears/ Flint axis appears to be a separate entity, although John Hutton supported Madam Duracel.
Parnell supported Johnson and Tom Watson Crudas.
I can't find any reference to Bev Hughes or Jaquci Smith
Last edited:
Brown is clearly a clever man and renowned for being able to take in great detail from a single briefing. He was notoriously the only Cabinet member who even read the Lisbon treaty for instance, and would dominate Blairs economic cabinets, and simply destroy any opposition to him with his infinately better command and understanding of what was going on. The only member who could go close to matching him for brain power on the subject was Ruth Kelly, and he resented that a bit as he didn't feel she earned her place round the table on ability, (Lady McBlairs personal appointment) and he would frequently rubbish her thus. He's famously intolerant, a short temper and has a close inner circle which if you aren't part of, then you are very much on the outside. So far as we can gather though, it is something of a meritocracy and this would be consistant with Browns whole approach. Even those he didn't like personally, he's been able to re-approach (Cook and Mandelson come to mind). Blair was more aware of how to build a team and a consensus and give the impression he was involving and consulting people even if he took no notice. Brown just wouldn't even observe these niceities. If he didn't rate you, he couldn't see the point of you.
Kelly was never really going to last once she'd lost the protection of Blair, and Brown is supposed to have frequently picked on her we're led to believe. She became the initial focus of a group who saw her as a victim, and later came to see themselves collectively as victims, who started meeting privately as a network of mutual support it seems. They called themselves the WAG's (women against Gordon) and as they grew they started to centre on Harriet Harman as their de facto leader, hence why she was manoeuvring about 3 months ago, and made some stupid comment about there not being enough airports in the country to accomodate all the men who'd want to leave if she became PM. The subject of gender is never far away from this single issue crusader and imo and it consumes to her an irrational level that leads her to become dangerously diverted from the real issues of the day, and nothing short of a potnetially de-focused liability.
The gender issue was/ is very much to the fore of this group and it seems to have been driving them. Caroline Flint has born it out to an unprecedented degree, as if confirmation were needed. I don't pretend to know if Brown has problems with women or not, but I do believe he has problems with what he perceives as light weights and incompetants, as well as a temper that doesn't mind letting them know it. None of the women on that list who've recently been resigning left, right and centre could have been said to have distinguished themselves, and in some cases (Bev Hughes and Jacqui Smith) they've been outright disasters, where as others like Hazel Blears, an irritant and embarassment.
No politican is ever going to recognise incompetance in themselves though, and if a common thread appears other than being crap, they're much more likely to attribute their collective failures to this instead. By transferring the blame to Brown because they're all women, suits quite nicely.
All of those women who have recently resigned in what looks like a choreographed sequence were all part of this WAG group. He can't sack Harman as Deputy Leader of course as it's not within his authority to do so, but he has given Mandelson the title of 'First Secretary' which is widely being interpreted as de facto Deputy Leader. Blears and Harman aren't believed to have enjoyed a particularly good relationship as both saw themselves as the head girl in the party, but some kind of uneasy alliance seems to have been brokered between their respective camps. The trouble seems to have come from the Blears side, with Harman keeping her powder dry one suspects.
I can actually see them trying to affect some coup d'tat and the Tower of London will be re-named Barbara Castle.
Flint's apparent conversion in the last 24 hours is nothing short of staggering. Even a footballer who professes his love of a club, just before signing for another would have been proud of this one, and it doesn't take too much imagination to see the hand of Blears and Harman behind it. It's also quite telling however, then when she seemingly had so many party issues to consider, as well as other factors effectiing governance, the people, and the country, she's explicitly gone out of her way to relate everything back to a constituency of one (herself) and a very small band of sisters (about half a dozen) beyond that. The contrast with James Parnell by comparison is quite stark. He does appear to have acted with a degree of a wider picture in mind. He's come to the same conclusions, but arrived there for altogether more laudible reasons other than self-interest.
I tend to agree with Clive, that Brown probably is in politics for all the right reasons and wants the best people for the job around him. In contrast Tony Blair was more inclusive and understood the dynamics of party management much more acutely, even if this meant giving oxygen to those who didn't necessarily merit it. Brown seems to have no time for this, and can't see the point of it, with the consequence that he alienates many more people.
I can't see how he'll survive this
Kelly was never really going to last once she'd lost the protection of Blair, and Brown is supposed to have frequently picked on her we're led to believe. She became the initial focus of a group who saw her as a victim, and later came to see themselves collectively as victims, who started meeting privately as a network of mutual support it seems. They called themselves the WAG's (women against Gordon) and as they grew they started to centre on Harriet Harman as their de facto leader, hence why she was manoeuvring about 3 months ago, and made some stupid comment about there not being enough airports in the country to accomodate all the men who'd want to leave if she became PM. The subject of gender is never far away from this single issue crusader and imo and it consumes to her an irrational level that leads her to become dangerously diverted from the real issues of the day, and nothing short of a potnetially de-focused liability.
The gender issue was/ is very much to the fore of this group and it seems to have been driving them. Caroline Flint has born it out to an unprecedented degree, as if confirmation were needed. I don't pretend to know if Brown has problems with women or not, but I do believe he has problems with what he perceives as light weights and incompetants, as well as a temper that doesn't mind letting them know it. None of the women on that list who've recently been resigning left, right and centre could have been said to have distinguished themselves, and in some cases (Bev Hughes and Jacqui Smith) they've been outright disasters, where as others like Hazel Blears, an irritant and embarassment.
No politican is ever going to recognise incompetance in themselves though, and if a common thread appears other than being crap, they're much more likely to attribute their collective failures to this instead. By transferring the blame to Brown because they're all women, suits quite nicely.
All of those women who have recently resigned in what looks like a choreographed sequence were all part of this WAG group. He can't sack Harman as Deputy Leader of course as it's not within his authority to do so, but he has given Mandelson the title of 'First Secretary' which is widely being interpreted as de facto Deputy Leader. Blears and Harman aren't believed to have enjoyed a particularly good relationship as both saw themselves as the head girl in the party, but some kind of uneasy alliance seems to have been brokered between their respective camps. The trouble seems to have come from the Blears side, with Harman keeping her powder dry one suspects.
I can actually see them trying to affect some coup d'tat and the Tower of London will be re-named Barbara Castle.
Flint's apparent conversion in the last 24 hours is nothing short of staggering. Even a footballer who professes his love of a club, just before signing for another would have been proud of this one, and it doesn't take too much imagination to see the hand of Blears and Harman behind it. It's also quite telling however, then when she seemingly had so many party issues to consider, as well as other factors effectiing governance, the people, and the country, she's explicitly gone out of her way to relate everything back to a constituency of one (herself) and a very small band of sisters (about half a dozen) beyond that. The contrast with James Parnell by comparison is quite stark. He does appear to have acted with a degree of a wider picture in mind. He's come to the same conclusions, but arrived there for altogether more laudible reasons other than self-interest.
I tend to agree with Clive, that Brown probably is in politics for all the right reasons and wants the best people for the job around him. In contrast Tony Blair was more inclusive and understood the dynamics of party management much more acutely, even if this meant giving oxygen to those who didn't necessarily merit it. Brown seems to have no time for this, and can't see the point of it, with the consequence that he alienates many more people.
I can't see how he'll survive this
Last edited: