Would things get worse if Labour got rid of Broon?

#1
Given that the one-eyed pensions thief is now the least popular PM since Major/Callaghan, and the least competent since Olaf the Hairy, would it be betteror worse for the country if Labour get rid of him?

Would a replacement be able to keep them in power through another election, presumably with LibDem help? Can the country cope with another two years of having that man in charge?

Given that we're British, and don't do revolutions, what other alternatives are there?
 

Trans-sane

LE
Book Reviewer
#2
I still say that the best democrasy in the world is danish. They were having a referendum on joining the EU, their foreign sec was pro-europe and there was a very large and powerful lobby against europe.

What happened? Some nut stabbed her to death in a super market. That has to go down on record as the least ambiguous protest vote in history.

As for the gurning scottish wonder, as long as he can keep the wheels on till an election, I don't care. Having said that would hug a hoodie "call me dave" be any better?
 
#3
Interesting article in yesterday's Times on this very theme.

The author reckoned that there are three options. None of them involves a Labour victory at the next election.

Firstly, a clean, quick break. The best option for the party. Labour sack Broon after the local election meltdown and replace him quickly after a short, relatively amicable leadership election. Pigs might fly! Gordon will have to be extracted from No 10 using a crowbar and half the cabinet will be fighting like ferrets in a sack to replace him.

Option 2. Broon clings on for dear life. Party discipline goes down the toilet and Broon turns a blind eye (boom boom) as his most junior MPs queue up to undermine him. Party collapses in a heap and, in the finest tradition of Labour governments, loses a confidence vote next year.

Option 3 - the nightmare scenario. Broon hangs on until the bitter end in 2010. By that time, we're borrowing cash from the IMF just to pay the interest on government debt. Inflation is at 30%. Public sector permanently on strike 'cos there's no cash to pay them. Army, Navy, RAF and any other government employee who can't strike is emptying bins and driving ambulances. Tory landslide precedes another 20 years in opposition for Labour while inexperienced Tory ministers implement deranged, poll tax style policies. Mariner heads for Pattaya to drink/sh@g himself to death.
 
#5
Mariner heads to Pattaya to drink/sh@g himself to death?.If what you outline in option 3 comes to pass,the Pound will be worth about 5 Baht.
 
#6
Le_addeur_noir said:
Mariner heads to Pattaya to drink/sh@g himself to death?.If what you outline in option 3 comes to pass,the Pound will be worth about 5 Baht.
Merde! You're right addeur noir. Better start buying up Bhat now - just in case.

Mind you - you can have a bloody good night out in Thailand for 5 Bhat.
 

Trans-sane

LE
Book Reviewer
#7
Le_addeur_noir said:
Trans-sane,

I think the Scandinavian country where that happened was Sweden,not Denmark.
I nearly typed sweden. I was thinking it was deffo sweden. Then I got my first visit from Emperor Mong.
 
#8
My prediction...

McBean gets knifed, Millipede gets in and...

they have an amnesty for zillions of illegals and ship them round marginal constituencies

and get Turkey in as soon as the Lisbon treachery is ratified everywhere and ship in zillions of Turks as well.

Zanu Labour just win in 2010.

Bliar said Britain was a new country. It wasn't but it will be.
 
#9
Ancient_Mariner said:
Interesting article in yesterday's Times on this very theme.

The author reckoned that there are three options. None of them involves a Labour victory at the next election.

Firstly, a clean, quick break. The best option for the party. Labour sack Broon after the local election meltdown and replace him quickly after a short, relatively amicable leadership election. Pigs might fly! Gordon will have to be extracted from No 10 using a crowbar and half the cabinet will be fighting like ferrets in a sack to replace him.

Option 2. Broon clings on for dear life. Party discipline goes down the toilet and Broon turns a blind eye (boom boom) as his most junior MPs queue up to undermine him. Party collapses in a heap and, in the finest tradition of Labour governments, loses a confidence vote next year.

Option 3 - the nightmare scenario. Broon hangs on until the bitter end in 2010. By that time, we're borrowing cash from the IMF just to pay the interest on government debt. Inflation is at 30%. Public sector permanently on strike 'cos there's no cash to pay them. Army, Navy, RAF and any other government employee who can't strike is emptying bins and driving ambulances. Tory landslide precedes another 20 years in opposition for Labour while inexperienced Tory ministers implement deranged, poll tax style policies. Mariner heads for Pattaya to drink/sh@g himself to death.
Me thinks your spot on here
 
#10
The problem here is, if they get rid of Brown, who is to replace him? The 'government of all the talents' were quickly shown to be no better than glove puppets. The contenders being mooted are:
Ed 'so what' Balls and his wife Yvette 'home information packs' Cooper.
David 'the boy' Milliband - currently unimpressing as Foreign Secretary.
Alan 'postman' Johnson and Hazel Blears.

Not very promising is it? The truth is, New Liarbour had very little talent to start off with, and after 11 years the bottom of the barrel is well and truly being scraped. Unless there is a hidden talent on the back benches that we are unaware of, the government will sink under Brown. Unfortunately, Ancient_Mariners doomsday scenario is looking increasingly likely. I always knew that Brown was not up to the job, even so, I am surprised at how quickly it has all unravelled.
 
#12
The fundamental problem is that Brown has basically asset stripped UK PLC.

The entire New Labour economic “success” has been based on selling assets and running up debt, much of it concealed (unfunded pensions, PFI deals, etc).

He got away with this for so long partially because the Conservatives had paid off most of the debts previous administrations had run up and partially because credit was cheap.

Nobody can get rid of that burden quickly, so no change of leadership can help in the short term.

Putting the economy back on to a long term course is going to hurt, and the longer Brown postpones things, by borrowing more, the worse it is going to be.
 
#14
heard_it_all_before said:
The following article was in The Sun,
Shame on you for reading it. Hope you didnt buy it. :x
 
#15
mnairb said:
The problem here is, if they get rid of Brown, who is to replace him? The 'government of all the talents' were quickly shown to be no better than glove puppets. The contenders being mooted are:
Ed 'so what' Balls and his wife Yvette 'home information packs' Cooper.
David 'the boy' Milliband - currently unimpressing as Foreign Secretary.
Alan 'postman' Johnson and Hazel Blears.

Not very promising is it? The truth is, New Liarbour had very little talent to start off with, and after 11 years the bottom of the barrel is well and truly being scraped. Unless there is a hidden talent on the back benches that we are unaware of, the government will sink under Brown. Unfortunately, Ancient_Mariners doomsday scenario is looking increasingly likely. I always knew that Brown was not up to the job, even so, I am surprised at how quickly it has all unravelled.


Liarbour backbench talent?
Oxymoron there then

Current Tory crop
not much better

Lib-Dems
Even less talent(and even more unfriendly towards HMF)

We all know what will happen, Another pointless Leadership race , where Pa Broon's successor is known and elected by popular(The Sun) vote

Middle-class Britain propping up the Welfare state that Bliar/Broon/Milliband(?) have left them.

Some Tory (pity Lady Thatcher wasn't available) picking up the pieces and all and sundry whinging because we get back into the reform and labour policies that got Britain back on its feet in the mid 80's.

Everyone will be whinging and moaning about how good Liarbour was under Bliar, rose tinted specs syndrome.
 
#16
Darthspud said:
Everyone will be whinging and moaning about how good Liarbour was under Bliar, rose tinted specs syndrome.
He will be remembered for all the wrong reasons but there will be those who say, 'but atleast under Blair blah blah blah'. Amazingly Brown has made Blair look 'quite good'.
 
#17
O2Thief said:
Darthspud said:
Everyone will be whinging and moaning about how good Liarbour was under Bliar, rose tinted specs syndrome.
He will be remembered for all the wrong reasons but there will be those who say, 'but atleast under Blair blah blah blah'. Amazingly Brown has made Blair look 'quite good'.
You have to remember that when Blair was in No 10, Broon was effectively the PM as far as spending was concerned. As Blair himself said, Gordon Brown 'had an unprecedented level of power for a Chancellor'. The massive increases in welfare spending and our bloated government are entirely down to Brown.

During the decade that Blair was in power, he gave Gordon thousands of billions to play with purely to keep him quiet and avoid a leadership challenge. Chancellor Gordon threw money at chavs for 10 years to fuel his wet dreams about 'lifting people out of poverty'. Tony saw that the money was being spent on Special Brew but he did nothing.

Now the bailiffs are knocking at the door, Blair has climbed out the bathroom window and left Brown, and us, to face the music. Blair is just as responsible as Brown for the mess we're in.
 
#18
So, after all those years of Broon trying to get Blair out and become PM himself, I wonder if he's now regretting it?
Maybe Emperor Mong told him to push for Blair to go so he could become gloriously reviled leader.
Hard to believe he hasn't been there a year yet. Amazing how much has gone wrong in so little time. You don't reckon Bliar is actually EM himself, do you? No, he couldn't be. Could he?
 
#19
Gordon Brown 'had an unprecedented level of power for a Chancellor'

Which makes the claim by Broons spin doctors that 'Gordon had nothing to do with the last 11 years but has just popped across the border to sort Tony's mess out' even more ludicrous. I noticed a number of Fleet Streets' finest were parroting this for a while (they should really do their research before lunch, not after it) but generally they have all twigged now and are laying the blame where it should be. The sound of pigeons coming home to roost is getting louder.

In response to 'Things can get worse?' oh yes, very much so. I think next year as more and more bad news comes in about the scale of debt that the country is actually in, we will look on 2008 as the calm before the storm. The problem is, the party is over yet government and local government are still spending like junkies because nobody has the guts to tell them to stop. So, believe me, instead of 'things can only get better', things can only get (and will get) much worse.
 
#20
The cult of the personality in politics is an inevitable result of a complacent Parliament allowing so much power to reside in the hands of a single leader. Even a US President does not have the same level of absolute authority as resides in a British Prime Minister.

The effect of this is that in absolving themselves from collective and individual responsibility and allowing such power to reside in a single person, Ministers and MPs of all parties may allow themselves to become the willing dupes of a leader in return for a fat reward. The beauty of this arrangement, from the point of view of an MP, is that in the minds of the public, the leader takes the blame when things go wrong, and an MP in fear of losing his place at the 'trough' in an election will simply act, in concert with others to replace the leader with another who, in the minds of a gullible public, is the panacea to all that went wrong with the last one. MP's can then sit back, do nothing, give unswerving loyalty in return for profit until the next crisis and then repeat the process.

Thus, changes of leadership actually have very little effect in a practical sense since the benefits of absolute power carry the burden of fragility of tenure in office for the person who wields it. In other words, the leader is hoist to the petard of the absolute power he aggregates to himself while those who actually bear, or should bear responsibility, real responsibility are those MPs who have sold their souls to the devil.

The reality is, of course, is that other than the collective removal of a leader, an individual MP has no more independence of thought and action inside Parliament than you or I exercise outside of it. Man for man, or woman for woman for that matter, they are little more than rubber stamps or mere cyphers for arbitrary decisions taken by a leader.

Ministerial accountability to Parliament is now dead, since the Ministerial code re-written leaving accountability purely to a Prime Minister means that a Minister has about as much power over events as that of any other MP. If his decisions are continually overruled by the No 10 Machine, then it may be asked precisely what he is required to be held accountable for, and, as a corollary, why he should, in effect, suffer an sanction for a failure resulting from a decision or a course of action that is not his but is, in fact, that of the Prime Minister?

Thus, it seems to me that the right question needs to be addressed. The question is not: will it make any difference who replaces Brown as a leader? The answer is manifestly clear - no difference at all. The question should be: Will it make any difference that the leader and those in his party are removed from office in their entirety?

That is, of course, another question for another day.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
dpcw Miscellaneous Jokes 0
F Army Pay, Claims & JPA 12
B The NAAFI Bar 123

Similar threads

Latest Threads