Brown teetering on the brink...

James Purnell has stepped down from the cabinet and told Prime Minister Gordon Brown to "stand aside" as leader.

In a letter to several newspapers, the work and pensions secretary said Mr Brown's continued leadership made a Tory victory "more, not less likely".

Hard to see how he can avoid a leadership contest now. It probably won't come to that, and he'll have to go of his own accord to avoid utter humiliation.

I suppose it would be an appropriate end for a man who came to the Premiership as an unchallenged leader of his party, and without a mandate from the electorate.

He will have both risen and then been removed from the top job in the country without ever facing an election of any kind.

Full Story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8083585.stm

Big_Bad_Bob wrote: and without a mandate from the electorate.

Though to be fair you as well as I know we don't vote for individual politicians but parties.

I have absolutely no idea who i'm voting for in the next election, they're all a bunch of pirates. Didn't particularly like the Tory response to the financial situation either! - 'Do nothing'

JKLever wrote:

Big_Bad_Bob wrote: and without a mandate from the electorate.

Though to be fair you as well as I know we don't vote for individual politicians but parties.

I have absolutely no idea who i'm voting for in the next election, they're all a bunch of pirates. Didn't particularly like the Tory response to the financial situation either! - 'Do nothing'

But that dates from a time when both politics and politicians were very different to how they are today.

The Prime Minister of the country is increasingly presidential in the way they lead, arguably they have even more power as most democratically elected presidents can't pick and choose when they go to the country.

Brown has deliberately surrounded himself with political pygmies in the cabinet to ensure there is no threat from within to his tenure. It is an abuse of the political system, and perpetuates the disengaging of huge swathes of the country's electorate.

Moreover, it is quite possible that in the local and euro election results to come over the next few days that Labour will have polled less than 20% of the vote, amongst a turnout of less than 50% of the eligible voters. Put another way, less than 10% of the adult population will have found it within themselves to vote for the party of the sitting government.

Yes, it is not a general election, but Brown has no mandate to lead, and his entire premiership has become merely concerned with doing whatever he can to save his own job, with not a jot of thought given to what is in the long term interests of the country.

Quite agree Bob, was being picky really

Will be interesting to see how the neanderthal BNP do, I fear a huge protest vote going their way. Though I'd give our general population more credit than that.

Aye, I guessed that was probably the case.

I also agree as far as voting at the next election is concerned. Not sure who I'd want to be returned as a government. Perhaps a hung parliament would be best, and force the qunts to work together if they want to get anything done.

Having said that, we'll be voting from within Ken Clarke's constituency for the first time at the next general election, and I'll have no problem with voting for him, Tory or not.

The right not to vote is one of the few rights you have left.

Exercise it.

The bonus is that you don't have to get up off your arse.

I spoilt my ballot paper at the last election.

Still participating in the political process, but registering my disdain for the options I was given.

Not voting does the same, but saves on ink.

Not even worthy of my disdain.

Disagree with you on that one JD

Not voting can be construed as "couldn't give a damn who's voted in", whereas spoiling the paper says loud and clear.......

" None of you pud-bashers"

Take a 30% turnout, with say 40% like you - none of the candidates - and the other 30% really CGAF - and compare with...

70% turnout with 30% voting and 40% spoilt papers. ** That's** what will get the message over to the political classes - that we can be bothered to turn out and vote - but not for the dross on the papers. The first scenario just says that 7/10 really don't care if the BNP nutter is elected by default.

What happens to Alastair darling will determine whether Brown stays or not. If he refuses to be shifted from the Treasury and goes to the back benches, Brown is done for.

Dello wrote:The right not to vote is one of the few rights you have left.

Except in Aus

And even here that's a joke. Though for some reason people make an attempt to turn up and cast a proper ballot.

Growler wrote:Disagree with you on that one JD

Not voting can be construed as "couldn't give a damn who's voted in", whereas spoiling the paper says loud and clear.......

" None of you pud-bashers"

Take a 30% turnout, with say 40% like you - none of the candidates - and the other 30% really CGAF - and compare with...

70% turnout with 30% voting and 40% spoilt papers. ** That's** what will get the message over to the political classes - that we can be bothered to turn out and vote - but not for the dross on the papers. The first scenario just says that 7/10 really don't care if the BNP nutter is elected by default.

Absolutely right.

Made almost precisely the same point on another forum yesterday evening.

Basil wrote:What happens to Alastair darling will determine whether Brown stays or not. If he refuses to be shifted from the Treasury and goes to the back benches, Brown is done for.

Looks like Darling is now staying.

Brown's spin doctors have been briefing against, and discrediting Darling all week, and because Darling has flatly refused to be moved from the Exchequer, Brown is now in such a weak position that he has had to backtrack and leave him in post.

Earlier in the week Brown thought removing Darling was the best way for him to remain in power, now he realises that leaving him in his job is the ONLY way for him to remain in power. Not a thought for the best interests of the country, it's all about protecting his own arse.

The bloke's a qunt.

Brown's done for. Think its up to 4 resignations from his cabinet, letters flying around behind his back for him to stand down etc etc.

The bloke is a qunt, always was IMO, and he has royally farked this country with his policies, mainly from Number 11 in my opinion. Now he's only self-interested as PM at present, and he hasn't got a clue what he's doing.

Problem is, I like many have no farking idea who to vote for at a general election. I think as Bob stated a hung parliament has to be the option really.

I voted yesterday in the Euro's, actually voted for an independant who drinks in my local occasionally, very clever sharp chap, so thought I'd give him my vote!

You wouldn't put it past the qarnts to elect someone else to be PM without going to the polls though.

Of course they will. That would give them a few months to be able to try and salvage a chance at the next election.

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:[

I suppose it would be an appropriate end for a man who came to the Premiership as an unchallenged leader of his party, and without a mandate from the electorate.

He had exactly the same mandate from the electorate as any other PM - his party held the Commons majority at the last General Election.

Rob I wrote:

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:[

I suppose it would be an appropriate end for a man who came to the Premiership as an unchallenged leader of his party, and without a mandate from the electorate.

He had exactly the same mandate from the electorate as any other PM - his party held the Commons majority at the last General Election.

As discussed earlier in the thread, the modern style of Prime Ministerial governance makes the entire constitution that allows this to be the case bankrupt.

Yes, Brown is only working within the rules, but is doing so in an entirely disingenuous fashion, insisting that he is trying to do the best for the country, when it is abundantly apparent to any objective observer that he is purely acting in the interests of desperate self preservation.

Shameful stuff.

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:

Rob I wrote:

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:[

I suppose it would be an appropriate end for a man who came to the Premiership as an unchallenged leader of his party, and without a mandate from the electorate.

He had exactly the same mandate from the electorate as any other PM - his party held the Commons majority at the last General Election.

As discussed earlier in the thread, the modern style of Prime Ministerial governance makes the entire constitution that allows this to be the case bankrupt.

So what you're saying is: we don't need a PM, we need an Executive President?

Well it certainly seems to be the case with regards to Gordy tenure. They are his policies implemented, and not Labour ones IMO.

Rob I wrote:

So what you're saying is: we don't need a PM, we need an Executive President?

Not saying that, no.

But the abuse of the principles on which the consitution was drawn up does mean some reform is necessary yes.

And ultimately the people, who after all are who the PM is supposed to be serving, are entirely mistrustful of a PM that has not had the mandate of the electorate given this modern style of leadership.

In Brown's case, he has not even had the mandate of an election from his own party. The parliamentary Labour Party foisted upon us, and even their own party members, their choice of leader and Prime Minister.

And as expected, what an utterly inept, damaging choice it has proved to be for both party and country, and come to that politics in general.

Jack Straw PM 2009-2010.

Gawd help us all...

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:

Rob I wrote:

So what you're saying is: we don't need a PM, we need an Executive President?

Not saying that, no.

But the abuse of the principles on which the consitution was drawn up does mean some reform is necessary yes.

[/quote]

Who will carry through your reform? Not Cameron when he's PM next year. It will suit him to continue in the same way.

In Brown's case, he has not even had the mandate of an election from his own party. The parliamentary Labour Party foisted upon us, and even their own party members, their choice of leader and Prime Minister.

The Labour Party could have challenged him at Conference. They didn't and his Leadership got signed off for another year. They can only replace Brown if someone is prepared to stand against him. Thus far nobody has.

Seems he's hung on, but only because there is no one else thats wants the piosoned chalice, especially as Labour are getting butt-farked royally in the county council elections. Even getting butt-whipped in the North West and losing a seat to the BNP.