Saturday, May 08, 2010
Brown to resign - All those in favour say aye
Bloomberg: Brown Should Quit as Party Leader, Labour Lawmaker Mann Says
Aye.
Posted by markj69 str05 @ 10:19 PM (949 views) Add Comment
22 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. markj69 str05 said...
Aye.
2. dbc reed said...
The Prime Minister does n't resign till the new government's fixed up or stitched up,whatever.That's the constitution .But so what ?There's a whiff of a coup in the air as the right-wing unites to kill off the public sector.
3. Blinktoofast said...
No. I think it would be far more humiliating if he were challenged for leadership from within and defeated in an overwhelming vote against him by his own party.
Quitting gives him opportunities to save face.
4. mark wadsworth said...
I was on the verge of saying "No" because I instinctively say the opposite of what everybody else says, but if a Lib-Con alliance will help reduce the size of the quangocracy (which is what DBC suggests) then I shall have to say "aye" to this one.
5. alan_540 said...
Och Aye
6. dohousescrashinthewoods said...
Aye.
Architect of our financial demise. Not the least bit "competent" on the economy - he sold the farm!
7. icarus said...
The Sun yesterday said there was a 59-year-old Scottish squatter at No 10 refusing to leave. An indicator of lack of democracy. Another such indicator would be an unelected 79-year-old Australian, not unconnected to The Sun, occupying a seat of enormous political power.
8. letthemfall said...
All the guff about moral right to govern is typical of the juvenile approach to politics in this country. One sensible approach might be for GB to stay PM for a fixed period (to get PR through with Libdems) then resign, or call a general election.
9. a saver said...
I say a THOUSAND TIMES AYE!! And so do all the others who signed the petition for GB to resign last year.
10. Dbc Reed said...
@MW If it was only quangoes they were after,I might feel some sneaking sympathy,but they still would n't have a democratic mandate.Nobody voted for a Lib -Con coalition.They won't stop there either.Government has been turfed out of the provision of housing (our primary concern here) and look at the economic,social and political mess its caused (or aggravated).They have got rid of nationalised industries like the railways that a large majority of British people want back in the public domain.More to the point the British state is constituted round a mixed economy. All this diminution of the public sector is more insidious for being advanced by political parties than the enlargement of the public sector was when proposed by some powerless communists and far lefties.
11. icarus said...
This story is based on an anonymous source expressing an opinion on the TONE adopted by Brown to Clegg. Surely if there's an unnamed whistleblower he/she should let us have a verbatim report on the conversation or else say nowt. Brown may be a lot of things but he's not an idiot, and only an idiot would rant and threaten somebody with the power to say yeah or nay to something the former badly wants.
12. house said...
@9 icarus
Brown was the man responsible for our economic woes, a people's party was courting the right rather than giving guidance to it's working people that borrowing was wrong and living by your means is correct. "Mr Micawbers theory" applies to individuals, businesses and countries. We as a mature society should have set the correct example and shunning greed. Therefore your comment to say he is not an "idiot" is a matter of opinion.
Anyone who had the power to do right decided not to take that opportunity must be an "idiot" is an impression he has portrayed himself. Look at Saddam Hussein who had all the opportunity of doing right but decided to do all wrong. Is he not an idiot?
13. icarus said...
@ house - we could argue all day about Keynes or Micawber and the extent to which government deficits are structural or cyclical etc., but if you argue that one view in this area is the correct one and that anybody who disagrees with that view is an idiot, then I'm using that word in a different way from the way you're using it.
I'm also wondering what Brown is supposed to have 'threatened' Clegg with. Kneecapping?
14. house said...
@11 icarus
I appreciate your comment. Yes he is not an idiot, you are right but he was not right for the job he had, ie. Chancellor of Exchequer. But his advisor's should have advised him more forcefully but the problem is that you can see how he behaved in Mrs Duffy's affair and he has also been accused of being a bully. But at the end of the day he wanted to take glory of the boom times and when the bad times came he stood up to say that I am going to save the world. The worst comment made by him as far as I am aware was that he told the country to go out and spend to get out of trouble ie. continue borrowing and spend. It is these events and comments made by him that annoy many people and protrays himself as a person who does not understand his job (ie.understand fundamental economic matters) which is why many perhaps consider him to be an "idiot".
15. icarus said...
@ house - you're re-fighting the election campaign. The issue here is a post-election one - did Brown threaten Clegg?. If so, with what?
16. letthemfall said...
house
Are you not describing the majority of politicians? The faux pas is something all politicians are prey to: GB won't be the only one to be rude about voters out of earshot; he just got unlucky. We can argue about which are the right economic decisions until the cows come home; it seems things always go wrong, regardless of understanding or otherwise of economics.
17. house said...
@icarus,
I doubt very much Brown threatened Clegg with anything but he must have said that working with Conservatives may not be best idea as there are ideological differences whereas the Liberal and Labour policies are much closer. I think Clegg had no choice but to deal with the Conservatives first.
18. house said...
@14, letthemfall
Not only the politicians but majority of us. However, when you are in public office then you have certain responsibilties.
There are perhaps no right or wrong economic policies but what I do not understand is why do we have to have growth every year. We are a mature and developed economy which means that our needs ie.the pouplations needs have been met. We have all that is required for survival. Why then the need for growth and greed which is what has caused all the problems. If we had run our services (ie.people who work in it) efficiently then there woud be no need for growth.
19. wdbeast said...
One Aye
20. letthemfall said...
house "why do we have to have growth every year."
Well I absolutely agree with you there. No doubt there are arguments around pensions, bank debt and all that stuff, but the constant quest for growth is really the constant production of stuff, much of which is rubbish anyway, the proceeds of which accrue most unevenly and damages the environment.
21. house said...
@18 letthemfall
"most of it is rubbish" How right you are? No more to add.
22. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.