No safe haven for the PM

The force is not with him. The game is up!

The retention of power has now become an end in itself.

Everything he does will be to this end

Brown is not a vote winner - this has been shown in the London Mayoral Elections, Local Elections, Crewe and Glasgow-East by-elections, surely New Labour aren't that stupid to follow their leader like Lemmings to oblivion... Perhaps Labour doesn't want to be seen as entering into a full-scale Civil War but a challenger might been seen as someone with the guile and conviction to win over the electorate.

Until then it seems more of the same. More 'help' for hard-pressed families by desperately trying to appease every section of the media and be seen as doing something. Warning of a Tory Government smacks of desperation - and is very reminiscent of the 1997 Tory slogan 'New Labour, Old Danger,' it didn't wash then and chances are that tactic won't work now either.

Brown should go. Blair is laughing his head off and Alex Salmond can look forward to running an independent Scotland.

This paragraph worries me:

"This should give Gordon Brown time at his party conference, and in the run-up to it, to unveil more of the help he is promising for so-called "hard pressed families" and to warn, as he did today, of the risks to them of a Tory government. "

The tone you have chosen makes it seem as if you believe in the risks he has outlined.

It is for the electorate to weigh up what other parties might have to offer - not for you as a political editor to make those judgements for us.

Today is a day when the leader of a major union has called for a leadership election, when backbenchers have repeated their calls for change.

As Political Editor for the national broadcaster, I would like to be able to look to you for a detailed analysis of the political scene. At the moment, there is very little of that.

Unfortunately he will not be able to hang onto power by his fingernails because he has already completely chewed them off.

Watching the coverage of Glasgow East on BBC News this morning, I was struck by how little excitement or astonishment there was among the studio guests.

So Labour have just lost their third safest seat in Scotland, one that they had still been reasonably sure that they could keep? It seems that bad news (for them) has become so commonplace that they need only to shrug their shoulders.

Let's keep hoping that all this bad news for them turns out to be rather good news for the rest of us.

Nu Labour is a party controlled and lead by politicians who have not the slightest interest in socialism, nor the welfare of the UK. Brown leads a crew of opportunists, who are without political ethos or a sense of decent morality. Although several are waiting in the wings, I cannot see any of them actually instigating a "revolution" within the ranks. They know, even in their boneheaded stupidity, that the party is finished as far as the next election is concerned, so rather than rock the boat, they prefer to maintain the status quo. As long as possible, they will collect their goodies, milking the taxpayers for every penny they can, putting aside a nest egg for the tough times ahead. Many cabinet members may even feel it expedient to let an untried tory party win and take on the chaos Brown and Darling have created. Cameron is an unknown quality, and he needs skills, ruthlessness and loyalty from his ministers and the public if he can build a garden from the bombsite UK society has become through the devastations Nu Labour will leave behind. Whether the voters will dare hand this over to DC to take on, or keep to the devil one knows, I am not sure.

Perhaps another important point that we should seriously consider here is adopting a British version (assuming the UK survives the next General Election) of the system that is used in US Presidential and Congressional Elections.

The UK would benefit from elections at fixed dates i.e. every four years on the first Thursday of May and fixed term limits for both the PM (say 2) and MPs (3 or possibly 4 terms - however, this doesn't apply to US Senators/Congressmen only the President) Such reforms, although unlikely to be adopted, would limit the prerogative power of the PM to manipulate the political climate to his advantage and would remove the incumbent advantage of MPs.

Perhaps a fresher politcal system?

warning of the risks of a Tory government...

GB can only scare voters with what the Tories might do, he can never inspire people what the Labour can do for them. Sad.

Noone is going to risk challenging for leadership only to be totally annihilated at the GE and be consigned to oblivion. Better to wait for the inevitable bloodbath and then step in to take over when The Party is at its lowest ebb. The real question however is who amongst the top brass is going to survive the wrath of the voters? It's going to be mighty interesting. The wait will take the full 2 years but everything worthwhile is worth waiting for however long.

Nick - you're an intelligent bloke - 'A good kicking'? Is that really the way to describe the woes of the Labour party in Scotland? Given the concerns in the UK over gangs, binge drinking, fights and knife crime, trivialising violence in this way is hardly appropriate language - especially for the Political Editor of the BBC is it. Surely you can think of a better way of conveying the message without suggesting physical attack can't you?
Apart from that - you've done a pretty good job this week on the Today programme!

Number 3 wrote:
Warning of a Tory Government smacks of desperation - and is very reminiscent of the 1997 Tory slogan 'New Labour, Old Danger,' it didn't wash then and chances are that tactic won't work now either.

But if only people had listened we might not now be in our present position.

Nick,

Surely commenting on this government is like watching a motorway pile-up in slow motion: an awful and bloody tragedy unfolding before one's eyes without the ability to do anything to avert the impending disaster.

Unfortunately, it is we bystanders (aka the public) who are the ones getting hurt and damaged by the dithering driver of this hapless charabanc.

If New Labour was an animal, it would be put out of its misery.

He won't be shouting at the wind Nick, he'll be urinating into it. And I have to agree with No. 4...

Every Labourite that's been on TV today has been lifeless/frightened/guilty/dead inside and it shows. Even Brown's effort at an energetic speech this morning failed, and any attempt to be patient and wait it out is doomed to failure as well. If they were really in control they'd do what has to be done, and that is to get rid of Gordy. If they keep him, they will lose the Election. (Please keep him Labour!)

re: 2

Have to agree Carrots. What on earth is happening to our country?

Has anyone read 'Atlas Shrugged' by Ayn Rand? It's basically 1200 pages of the decline and fall of New Labour.

#2 - CarrotsneedaQUANGO2

I remember Blair standing outside the Festival Hall in the early hours 3 May 1997 and announcing that the new government "would not achieve all these objectives in a first term" (paraphrased from memory but words to that effect).

"The retention of power has now become an end in itself."

No, it was the end from the very beginning.

#13 - ScepticMax

"If New Labour was an animal, it would be put out of its misery."

No it would be shot before it savaged anyone else.

re: 7

"Nu Labour is a party controlled and lead by politicians who have not the slightest interest in socialism, nor the welfare of the UK. Brown leads a crew of opportunists"

Yep. And the SS Labour has hit a very large iceberg whilst Brown was dozing at the helm. No amount of bailing will save them! The only question is will Captain Birdseye---I mean Brown go down with his ship?

"It's a defeat which changes everything and yet also changes nothing. "

Nick, perhaps you would have a slightly different view if you asked what has changed in Scotland that made this result possible?

I don't think even David Cameron actually wants an election until Gordon Brown faces total and abject defeat, not only for him but also his party.

Just like Germany and Japan in WWII it is only by total defeat that change came come about. We need new labour to go down just like the original liberal party was defeated after WWI. It was the liberals who contributed to the wiping out of a generation of good men, men who died for nothing, it is the same in Iraq and Afghanistan. Labour has taken us into a trap, we will lose, there will never be an end.

After their ignominious defeat labour will split, just as the lib dems will, there is no future in either party. As for the conservatives they will have England and the Nationalists will have Wales and Scotland, the United Kingdom will split of that I have no doubt!

In 1928/1929 weak politicians made terrible decisions which cast the world into a Great Depression, do not think that it will never happen again. Boom and bust was never going to happen again, yet where are we, in boom and bust!

With the conservatives they will implement what is known as Pareto efficiency into the economy, where it is impossible to make at least one person better off without making anyone worse off.

Now I do not mind a government attempting to end poverty, but not at the price of making me impoverished, that is plain crazy, and I know of nobody who will willingly vote in any party that makes that promise. Where is the alternative, I can't see one, enlighten me please.

re: 13

If New Labour was an animal it would be a sloth. Does nothing but sleep, consume and excrete and sometimes falls out of trees.

It was very obvious a few years ago that Tony Blair knew that Gordon Brown was simply NOT PM or leadership material.

I think Blair was desperately hoping that someone would come along that would be strong enough to stand against both Gordon Brown and the moaning Diane Abbots of the mid left, but that person never emerged.

If you look at the last few months of the Blair leadership, and put aside the arguments between the men that was so distracting Nick Robinson and other journalists, you can plot a trail of Tony Blair desperately trying to build Brown up, trying to make him a serious contender, giving him support, vast amounts of leeway to go touring the country, anything to try and train him to do the job it was inevitable he was going to get.

Blair knew that the decision to go into Iraq would probably see his downfall. There was going to have to be some pretty amazing lucky strikes for it to go 100% in his favour. But, with Gordon Brown, even at that time, taking so long to support Blair (which I think he genuinely did - he was just useless at getting out and saying so) it was obvious Brown was potentially a liability as leader.

I sometimes wonder if many of the arguments were Blair trying to force Brown into making fast, decisive moves that would show him to be attentive and reactive, rather than the detail obsessed book keeper he can often appear.

Brown is not leadership material. he never was. That was why Blair became leader all those years ago - Brown would have blown it.

I don't think he is useless as Cameron wants us to believe, and I think he is naturally more honest and forthright than he has been advised to appear.

However, the media love a showman. Blair was a showman (though now he is coming across quite differently), Cameron is a showman, though with inclinations towards the sneering schoolboy. Nick Clegg is, umm, probably nowhere. (Has anyone noticed that Vince Cable is actually still leading the Lib Dems?)

Brown is drowning.

It is a shame, I think he is a type of politician that is sadly rare in the commons, but he just does not and will not cut it with the electorate.

The pity is that Cameron will probably get in and I fear that with an economic climate still likely to be difficult, he will prove to be divisive at a time when that can be highly destructive.

Just my 10 cents worth.

Trying to claim that a Tory Government would be bad for the country so we better stick with Labour is a pathetic tactic. Next week it will be "you can't vote for them, they went to Eton", then "but they have more money than you, they must be keeping you down" and eventually "know you place and vote for Labour or we'll take away you tax breaks and benefits". If Labour have nothing positive to add then they should step aside so new ideas can be presented. I may not beable to relate to an old money etonian, but I'd much rather vote for them than a bitter and twisted closet communist.

Remember we were promised "things can only get better" well ask yourself 10 years later, are they? has you life improved? do you have more money? a better education for your kids? a cleaner, better hospital? job security? home security for that matter? It can't all be the Global Economies fault as Labour who have you believe!

and @8 Changing leader just because they have been there a while is a terrible idea (look at the US, just when a good president gets going they are usually replaced with the nearest available idiot), and if you changed MPs every few years nothing would get done, it takes that long just to work out how the archaic back room dealings of Parliament work.

Two years of this isn't going to be in the least bit tedious is it.

Typical Labour, they were so unprepared they haven't even got a half decent caretaker Prime Minister available.

But don't worry, it must be Nick Cleggs fault.

The Nu labour revolution has run its course and without its Scottish vite would not be in power today .The heartland labour voters have sent a clear message they have had enough of the pseudo socialites promises and will no longer see them feathering their own nests.

The failed promises and deceitful way they have done a deal with the constitution in Europe will set them back for 10 years at least.

If they think that it will get better by hanging on until the last minute they are gravely mistaken no one will forget the boasts that have failed to appear "tough on crime " et al
but of course they will get a reduced pension so that wont be happening.

I can't see anything changing !

Gordon Clown believes it's his destiny to be PM, he believes all his own hype about being the only one prudent enough to steer the country through these "difficult, globally induced, economic times", no mention that as C of E he wasted so much and blew the best economy ever to be inherited by an incoming government. Today was pretty much as expected, "we're listening" "the people want me to do my job", NO NO NO Gordon, the people want you to go.

He wont resign, he wont be forced out, he'll hang on for as long as he can before calling a General Election. In the meantime they will probably borrow so much and commit so much that any incoming government will have their hands pretty much tied for years after coming to power, trying to sort out the NULabour mess.

Really can't see anyone challenging him. I think that most of the potential candidates will realise that it's best to let Gordon take them over the edge, then let the British public do their dirty work for them and get him out. I think they will get wacked out of sight at the next General Election, Gordon will retire on a fat pension and probably get the seat on a few "Bank boards" to top up his pension. Can't see him making much on the after diner speech circuit! Then a new leader of the NuLabour will emerge when realistically the only way would be up. At present they're still on the way down and no change of Leader will stop that at present.

Should the news always personalise this sort of thing?

It's all Gordon Brown according the media.

You used to say it was all Tony Blair. They got rid of Blair, but things actually got worse.

Perhaps you could look at the policies - maybe voters aren't bothered about the individuals.

(According to a phone-in contributor locally: labour lost in Glasgow East because 90% of the constituency is on benefits and labour just announced they will have to get a job or lose their money. Don't know if that's true, but it sounds like more of a motivation than who is living in number 10, hundreds of miles away)

4 simonox

I think the papagraph you highlighted is rather too biased for a balanced reporter as Nick is upposed to be. Too biased towards Labour.

What "help" is this for the hard-pressed? And how does he plan to pay for it?

In case Brown hasn't noticed, we're on the brink of a recession and there are going to be a surge in the number of "hard-pressed families" as firms cut back. Tax receipts are going to be down, unemployment up and he's ensured there is no more manoeuvring room in taxation.

This is either him desperately hoping he can pull one hell of rabbit out of a hat, or he plans to borrow a major slice of cash in order to bribe voters.

Personally I'm expecting a "private-based initiative to drive forward the reduction of poverty" involving housing stock from building firms, the idea being the government pays for the houses in x years time at either current rates or future rates, whichever is higher.

The new tenants pay a peppercorn rent to the government, and have a property to take loans against, the government buys loads of houses without them currently appearing on the books and the struggling building firms now have a load of properties with guaranteed future income with which to extend credit on.

22 He may be naturally more honest, although I have never seen any evidence of this, but unfortunately he seems to feel that honesty is not required in the House of Commons or when speaking to the country. His list of lies and deception is endless. The most recent examples of the abolition of the 10p tax rate and the retrospective VED tax increases on older cars are a true indicator of his veracity. He claimed in both cases that there would be few losers when the opposite was true.
No one now believes a word he says and he will surely lead Labour to a massive defeat in 2010.

They often say that what separates a great leader from a poor one is that a great leader can achieve great things during a recession, but anyone can look great during a boom.

It looks to me like the "solid as a rock" chancellor is starting to crumble under the pressure of the failing economy. Now he is being tested under pressure, we can see that he was riding the strong economic tide and was not causing it.

The greatest concern though is that whilst Gordon Brown is not the greatest leader, the opposition are no better. We need someone who can make those tough decisions and steer the economy back on track. We need strong economic foundations upon which to rebuild consumer confidence and we must accept that sometimes those foundations are difficult to lay. Gordon is not the person to do this.

18 power_to_the_ppl

Really enjoyed your comparing the Great Leader with Captain Birdseye. Good job the misery brigade seem to be at home having a wake or at the least sulking under the bedclothes, because they can't write furious posts accusing me of writing spiteful or unkind blogs. I thought about the Captain Birdseye nmetaphor because I was eating fish fingers for my tea, and they definitely looked rather chewed at the edges!

He will hold on untill the next election to make sure the EU constitution has time to take roots that can't be removed.

He will stay on to make sure the EU constitution takes roots that can't be got rid of.

If any Labour leader continues to follow the Bush foreign policy or to continue to privatise anything that moves he will destroy the Labour Party.

Gutless Gordo is bust. He has spent 8 years suling, 24 months undermining his boss, and the last year destroying everything built by labour for the good of a nation. Gutless has sulked, bullied and moaned his way to being remembered as 3rd rate.

#27 jon112uk

"locally" presumably means elsewhere than in Scotland.

Crass remarks like "90% of the constituency is on benefits" were reported in the constituency (which has significant pockets of deprivation) and caused significant resentment among the voters.

I think what is really interesting about the demise of the PM is how it is all about perception. If you actually look what he has and has not done,I think he has done very little to warrent such a huge back lash. I think it is time for him to go but I have never seen such a back lash against one man.

Excellent posts at 22 and 27.
The problem though is that Brown is therefore getting "a kicking" for not being a showman and for doing the right thing in saying to bogus incapacity benefit claimants enough is enough.
Symptoms I think of the electorate simply saying time for change. Hopefully not the same "sea change" that swept Mrs Thatcher into power in 1979.
It could be that the next election is a good one to lose - much like when Neil Kinnock lost in 1992.

This result has changed a lot Nick.Forget the Tory Labour battle Scotland has moved to a new freedom.Never again will the working man say I have to vote Labour or the other lot will win.never again will the unemployed say we must vote Labour its our only way out.The working class of Scotland has woken up to the fact that the SNP are more in tune with their needs.Gordon Brown has not only lost the Scottish trust he has lost the 100years of faithful voters who have stood by Labour right or wrong.that takes some doing.Add to that the results in may when staunch Labour welsh miners turned against them and you have wipe out for Labour.

re: 32

Lol ta. I think the lefties are still out there, reading this blog and silently fuming but not commenting... yet. I'm really looking forward to grandantidote's return. If you're there Mr. G, please say something in Labour's defense, we could all do with a chuckle!

Speaking of famous captains, I think the dour Scot would somewhat resemble Captain Haddock from Tintin if he was to shave his beard. Blistering barnacles!

25 andfreedom the answer to your second paragraph is a overwhelming YES.

re: 36

"Gutless has sulked, bullied and moaned his way to being remembered as 3rd rate."

That's how history will remember him along with the rest of his gang of freeloaders. Take the Milliband brothers, more like the Chuckle brothers (to me to you!) only no-one's laughing.

What is the point of 'warning of the dangers of a Tory government' when we have one?

Brown is hanging onto power because he waited so long for it. He is not the right man for this job. Rather than the blood letting of a challenge, he should do the honorable thing: resign and allow a debate in the party for a successor to emerge. There would be no need for a General Election; we elect governments not PMs.

The alternative is a Tory government presiding over massive cuts to the public sector, a greater devalued NHS and massive unemployment. However, more clear blue water - with the sort of policies that people want - can be achieved with a completely new direction and a new Cabinet

Gordon Brown is at the nadir of his political fortunes and is extremely vulnerable. But never discount him for he will persevere doggedly to turn the the tables on his Conservative counter-part David Cameron! But this is certainly a wake-up call to Labour rank and file to close ranks and to try and convince the electorate that Labour has healthy prescriptions for the economy, health and other major sectors. With his back against the wall, Gordon Brown will have to produce the brilliance he is known for, a prudent ex-Chancellor who kept the Treasury ticking perfectly. Gordon has to improve his communication skills: he does appear to be going back to his old wooden self! Take things in your stride Gordon. You have the brains and experience and should resurface to beat off the Conservative challenge.

I've read it before, and I agree, the next election might well be a good one to lose. Whoever forms the next government, Torys or by some miracle Even Newer labour, then they will have some clearing up to do.

#40. To the welsh miners add the electorate of Crewe and Nantwich. Crewe, a working class Railway town, a labour stronghold for decades.

#41

power_to_the_people Hi,

I too was missing Grandantidote. Don't agree with his politics, but he isn't petty or spiteful, is very erudite, and if we all thought the same way, how boring and pointless this would be.
Concerning famous captains, the dour GB would also fit well into the shoes of Captain Queeg (The Caine Mutiny)!

#42 grandantidote

25 andfreedom the answer to your second paragraph is a overwhelming YES.

-------------------

I think you mean andfreedom @23 not 25

You must still be in shock at NuLabours loss in Glasgow East, so your mistake is understandable.

Its starting to become a trend so get used to it!

Labour have been massively succesful and achieved what they set out to do.

They set out to break up the UK into easily controlable regions to hand over wholesale to the EU dictators.

This has been a stepping stone to the establishment of Blair's and Brown's oft stated aim of a unipolar world order. AKA one global dictatorship. That is why these so-called "socialists" have privatised our national energy generators and sold them to foreign control. The UK is not supposed to be self sufficient anymore, but should be totally dependent on the EU. Labour never ever had any intention of giving us our promised referendum. Their sole concern is servicing the agenda of the global elitists.

Personalities or policies?

If you have no policies sure as hell you need a personality. The game of politics is about both and a third element - events. Events have derailed Gordon. A decent man with his heart approximately in the right place, but whose personality does not shine through.

However David C. on the other hand and his Latin speaking associate Boris J. have personalities but no evidence of any actual convictions about policies, but they are benefiting from events.

The media are leading the electorate to believe in a new saviour - an inexperienced man of patrician upbringing. It is unfortunate that the man is not noticeably encumbered by policies - perhaps the media intend to create these for him?

It is all a bit too like Obama/McCain (or Sarkozy/Royal) - we do not have a presidential system but the media has not noticed!

We need to hear the ideas, big, small, whatever - we need to hear about the guiding principles, but alas all we hear is vacuous nonsense!

I think it's interesting, that the SNP could do to the UK political landscape what the PQ did to the Canadian political landscape in the 70's. We now have a nationalistic minority party with a significant number of seats. They, in effect, as an entity, could hold the swing vote for the whole of the UK in a general election. This plays right into Scottish nationalists as the two main parties pander to their needs (just as the PQ in Canada) until the day they become independent, if ever.

Captain Bligh?

Think I'd better go to bed. Goodnight to you all.

50:

before, i was undecided about the lack of a referendum. I hadnt made up my mind either way. however, your articulate posting has now completely convinced me of the dire necessity of not giving the people a rendendum on this issue.

"This has been a stepping stone to the establishment of Blair's and Brown's oft stated aim of a unipolar world order."

honestly. what does that even mean? how can you possibly believe that?

I am sorry to have to tell you that something has just happened in Scotland which you really ought to try to understand. The Union now has a dagger at its throat and cannot survive in its present form. It has in fact become quite conceivable that it cannot survive at all.

If the SNP can get a swing of 22.54 per cent against Labour in Labour heartland such as Glasgow East in a Westminster by-election, it can certainly make very serious progress indeed against that party at the next UK general election.

Loyal Labour support has long stood in the way of Scottish independence. That unquestioning support has now collapsed. The SNP has shown that it can sweep Labour aside and achieve its constitutional ambitions for Scotland.

Glasgow East is not just another disastrous by-election for the Labour UK government. It is a triumph for the Scottish Government, the governing party of which will exploit its victory there to the full and build upon it throughout the Labour heartland in Scotland.

The message to Labour from Glasgow East is the same as the message which it has sent to the UK: time's up.

Following the Crewe by-election, our Great Leader said that, "we will have to listen". Well, they they may have listened but they paid no attention. Because GB is always right.

Last night, they said, again, "we will have to listen". But again, they will not change their ways. Because, GB is always right.

Until GB realises he is not, always, right, Labour will suffer.

Post No 2 is bang on the money - just like for John Major, hanging grimly onto power has become an end in itself for Gordon the Golem. And he'll continue to squander the nation's wealth in increasingly desperate bids to shore up his position.

The prime Minister can do something for the common man to show that he cares and listens. He has not shown any sign yet that he can act to relieve the voters from the economic crunch. One suggestion is to announce the abolution of car parking fees in NHS hospitals. This will affect thousands of people across the country and will be welcome by all.

#58 ba51tab

Brown only controls the NHS in England. glasgow is in Scotland.

""This has been a stepping stone to the establishment of Blair's and Brown's oft stated aim of a unipolar world order."

honestly. what does that even mean? how can you possibly believe that?"

Well, STOP relying on the BBC for your news and do some research yourself. Look at the speaches that Blair and Brown have made to the monied elite in the city, mansion house and to wall Street, Look at what they have been calling for on many occasions, a unipolar (one point of influence) world order (global government) the single global dictatorship that is fast approaching and that according to the leading figures of that global government, the global leading media outlets have been utterly complicit in allowing to happen "under the radar of publicity"


Quote: "We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination [democracy] practiced in past centuries."

David Rockefeller... Baden-Baden, Germany 1991

The labour party (and the tories) are mere puppets to the global banking elite. They are in hock to them for hundredds of billions of pounds. It is this elite that are creating the same "big brother" state in country after country after country in the same way with the same laws and restrictions on liberty, with ever more international integration. the several large pan-national power-blocks (the EU, the soon to come NAU, the AU the SAU etc) are but stepping stones to the creation of a global dictatorship.

Or are you a mere coincidence theorist?

People are unhappy at the way this regime seeks to rule us

We are ruled by a Numenklatura


they think that ordinary people deserve a criminal record for leaving their bins open yet all commit criminal fraud with their expenses

they assume the rules they make for eveyone else do not apply to them. this week for example they want to ban cheap booze but as im sure you aware they wont apply this to the house of commons bars where its always happy hour

they all think that normal rules of honesty decency and probity are things they are exempt from

The tories will be just as corrupt and incompetent, im sure david cameron is every bit as corrupt as the numenklatura.

I hope however he will leave us alone

This is mid-term in the eleventh year of a government; the only surprise is that anyone is surprised that the governing party does very badly indeed in a by-election in those circumstances.

It was always doubtful that Labour would win four on the trot; according to Campbell, Blair never really expected to win three in a row. With a PM who is highly competent, and whose heart is in the right place, but whose persona is the opposite of 'sexy' it was always likely that 2010 would see a change of government; that's the way the UK political system works. But please don't interpret a victory by the SNP in a by-election in these circumstances (almost certain to be reversed when the General Election comes) as some sort of defining moment in UK/Scottish politics. According to reports, the SNP hardly mentioned their 'raison d'etre' in this latest campaign; when Scottish independence becomes the issue, as surely the SNP must make it when it's a General Election, the outcome is likely to be very different I think.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Isn't it legal to kill a Frenchman with a bow and arrow from the walls of York? I wonder if there are any daft laws by which Brown can be deposed...

"This should give Gordon Brown time at his party conference... to warn, as he did today, of the risks to them of a Tory government."
to report "the risks" as fact is BBC pro-Labour bias. It is totally unacceptable: the continued attempts by Maitlis, Robinson and others to actively support Brown is appalling: I complain and request the BBC news editors to address this immediately and make a public statement.

The situation is intensifying as each electoral failure unfolds. The electorates are becoming more and more offended by his hanging on. He is persona non grata and too thick to realise this will lead to his and Labours humiliation for years to come and possible bankrupcy.

Nick " winds of change" is the thing.

We are seeing the break up of the UK like a slow car crash and its probably unavoidable now. I personally would not rule out the kind of Labour meltdown where the party splits in the aftermath.

If we do not secure energy security, and to me that means renewables then the position of the UK economy is not certain.

So do I care how history sees the Brown and Blair legacy. No.

I will see it as blind people leading us all off a cliff and as we all fall they say " so far so good, so far so good ...."

#58 - ba51tab

"One suggestion is to announce the abolution of car parking fees in NHS hospitals."

Not to mention the car parks in the grounds.

According to the Guardian website: "The UK is to replace its stockpile of nuclear warheads at an estimated cost of more than £3bn." Not only is this a very bad idea indeed, but where's the money coming from? Let me guess, us.

When Gordon Brown declares - under intense pressure to resign or call a General Election - "I am the best person to lead the country out of these current global difficulties" - on what basis does he claim to be this hero who can get us out of the mire he himself has made?

Is it because he has a proven track record in sound and successful fiscal and economic management? I think not!

Is it because he was elected by the voters of the UK to be PM? No - not that either!

Is it because he currently the best communicator in politics? Hmmm .... not really!

Is it because he was voted in as PM by the members of his party in a contest where otherv candidates also stood? Unfortunately nothing there either!

Is it because he is popular, has personality, a likeable manner and charisma? Well the Opinion Polls say otherwise!

Is it because he is doing a wonderful job as PM - winning by-elections, impressing voters, riding high on the world stage? Hardly!

So how does he do it? How does he cling to power, how does he suppress opposition from within his own party and cabinet? How does he look others in the eye, how does he sleep at night and how does he believe the rubbish he continually utters each and every day?

Is he a bully, an introvert, an egomaniac, a nasty piece of work? How does he live with himself and his unfailing belief in his own self importance and God given right to be where he is?

He comes to power via the back door, destroys the economy, spends money he can't afford on the armed services and hands out benefits for those not worthy. He is someone who robs the hard working and gives to those who don't derserve it. Someone who suppresses all opposition and claims 'leadership' without a vote. Believes the English are the problem and when confronted with a huge majority of people who want him to go calims he is the best and only person capable of leading the already 'sinking ship'

Does he remind you of ROBERT MUGABE?

#62 jimbrant

I agree that the probability is that Glasgow East will have a Labour majority at the next UK General Election. However, I'm not sure that you understand the new dynamics of politics in Scotland.

Reports suggest that the "aspirational" areas of Glasgow East, such as Garrowhill, turned out to vote in large numbers - and voted SNP. The SNP don't need to stress that their aim is independence, we all know that.

That's not to say that those voters who switched from Labour to SNP were backing independence - even the SNP don't claim that. However, what is significant is that they were happy to do back the SNP, because independence is no longer a threat, but an opportunity that they are prepared to consider.

After 14 months of minority SNP Government, they are viewed positively by the majority (though like any Government, they have ample time to screw up!). Annabelle Goldie has done a great job leading the Tories here, and her style is more in line with traditional Scottish Conservatism than the rather irrelevant (to us) mouthings of the UK Tories with their Public School (why do the English call private schools "public"?) background.

We have more elections than in England (and under different PR systems), and people frequently vote differently in different elections.

For example,

In the European elections, I'll vote SNP because we need to maximise the distinctive Scottish voice there.

In the UK election, I'll vote either SNP or Labour (depends who's more likely to win in this constituency) because the smaller the Tory majority at Westminster the better.

In the referendum (if we get it) I'll vote for independence and hope that the negotiations will result in a loose UK union for common interests).

For Holyrood, I'll vote SNP for the constituency, but may vote differently for the list MSPs - dependent on who is top of the other party lists.

If the local authority candidates are the same as last time, then I'll cast my 3 votes for the Independent (though she's really a Tory) Labour, and SNP.

The 2 party "yah, sucks, boo" system that you guys have is rather alien.

Isn't Brown's problem that whilst his allies bang on about his economic record and his economic credentials the real weakness of his regime is the politics. The present Labour government is very poor at the politics ie it doesn't recognise problems that are looming and its response to issues is often hamfisted.

Added to this there is a really motley crew of Ministers and fellow travellers. Has Alastair Darling ever been successful at any of his ministerial jobs? Does Jacgui Smith sound credible? and wehat of Ed Balls and Ed Miliband.

In history it is common for strong rulers to be followed by weak rulers and Gordon Brown's tragedy is that whilst he was a fine Chancellor he lacks the political skills to be a fine PM. Labour will lose the next election adn there is nothing that Labour MPs can do about it because it is already too late to change the leader of the Party

@62, jimbrant

Come off it - this has been a safe Labour seat for around 6 decades with an almost 25% swing vote.

Were this a mid-term council election you'd have some argument of this as a protest vote or a mere sign of the usual electoral discontent you get after so many years, instead you have one of the safest seats in a traditional Labour heartland moving over to the SNP.

Claims of it being "one of those things" or some mid-term malaise are disingenuous to say the least, especially as no one other than Salmond really thought Labour would lose.

It's a repeat of the Tory implosion of the mid 90's, only this time there are more parties in play - Brown must be grateful neither Kennedy nor Cable are leading the Lib Dems or Labour really would be flirting with a potential third place come 2010.

62:
Sheer complacency and total nonsense! Even his own Ministers and MPs recognise that this result is a very poor one mid term or not. As for GB being 'highly competent' where is your evidence?

Nick,

I when I look at the members of the cabinet and I assess their performance in the media and read their qualifications and prior experience in Wikipedia, I am struck by how very poorly they are suited/qualified for the positions that they hold. I have been unable to find one that would pass an interview for a management position in my (small) company - let alone a directorship.

A long time ago, it was crystal clear to me that Gordon Brown did not have what it takes to lead, a small organisation successfully, let alone the country.

This has now become clear to the country as a whole.

Nick, you know these people at first hand, and must make, at least, a private assessment of their capabilities (or lack of them). For the sake of all of us, this has to be made more of an issue. However likeable some of the some of these characters are, however much you may admire their motives, if they lack competence they shouldn't be in the job.

Lack of competence is what is killing this Government (and our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan). It is killing the Labour party, and the lesson MUST be learned by the next Government, that to be, even moderately successful, it must be composed of people who have track record of success in management and are qualified for the positions they hold.

45 wrote:
"With his back against the wall, Gordon Brown will have to produce the brilliance he is known for, a prudent ex-Chancellor who kept the Treasury ticking perfectly. Gordon has to improve his communication skills: he does appear to be going back to his old wooden self! Take things in your stride Gordon. You have the brains and experience and should resurface to beat off the Conservative challenge."

I simply don't subscribe to the assertion that he was either brilliant or prudent as C of E. His failings are not purely down to a lack of communication skills either. The man is quite simply flawed from top to bottom and the majority of The Electorate including many previously staunch Labour voters have now finally twigged it. Your last sentence defies belief!

The fundamental flaw with Gordon Brown is that in his eyes he is always right and will miss-speak to prove it.
He wriggled and twisted with the 10% tax band and never accepted that some people (the poor) would be worse off like, he did with the 2p on petrol and VED.

One of the "games" that DC plays with him at PMQ's is to get him to state something that is patently untrue. He falls for it every time and makes absurd claims for himself while banging his fingers on the dispatch box in a thunderous rage. I haven't seen anything like it since my son was 2.

When he was Chancellor his budget statements were always list of numbers that purportedly made him brilliant but close analysis afterwards showed that he had failed to achieve his targets for the previous year or a hidden stealth tax that he failed to mention. Pension ACT was the first, it was followed by so many that finding the stealth tax became a journalist's game.

Until he and NuLabour is out of government we won't have a clear idea of the true state of the British economy or government finances.

His defining legacy is 20 year old single mothers with 3 children telling TV reporters that they don't have enough money to live on. The social policy of money following the child has turned children into a source of income.

Enoch Powell was wrong about his "rivers of blood", but spot on with "all political careers end in failure", eh Gordon?

62 jimbrant

I tend to think that your analysis of Glasgow East is rather "clutching at straws." Not that there are many. In interviews I saw and heard people were saying they had always voted for Labour but never again because they don'r care about the poor. How are you going to reverse that?

Any reasonable thinking person (not dyed in the wool Labour supporters, althougth some have become scabs) knows that Brown is finished, his party want rid of him but are too cowardly to do the job, and because of his Machiavellian approach to getting and keeping the job there are no likely replacement candidates. He has nowhere to turn.

Likewise, anyone thinking Brown is going to have a moment of brilliance and come up with an election winning strategy is "urinating in the wind" or rather "into the wind."

The result is a country we are leaderless, rudderless, and takinga dangerous course. And based on yesterday's meeting in Warwick it is increasingly obvious that the unions will be pulling the strings.

But never mind, Brown and all of his cabinet have said publicly that they will "listen and learn."

However very reasurring.

I've just been out in the street walking the dog and saw a laser printed sign in the back window of a car.

It says

"Destroy Britain
Vote Labour"

Just about sums things up, don't you think?

However I'm rather worried that the driver will probably be arrested, charged with terrorism and put away for at least 42 days!!!

41. power_to_the_ppl wrote:

Lol ta. I think the lefties are still out there, reading this blog and silently fuming but not commenting.



Youre not wrong,

Large family gathering today and father-in-law makes GA look like George Dubya.

Im told hes not in good shape right now, been exploding for over 24 hours, even the meter reader got a blast.

3 calls from concerned family so far and am under strict instructions from wife not to talk to him about anything other than gardening.

In fact and I quote. If you even say youve heard of Glasgow East, theres no nookie till Christmas.

Might just be worth it.

80. mikepko

Mike your such a fearmongerer.

So long as he doesnt drive past parliment he will be just fine.

Any how if hes done nothing wrong what has he got to fear.

re: 81

Lol yeah it might be, but steady on, don't make any hasty decisions!

From the BBC website: "Justice Secretary Jack Straw had been touted as a caretaker leader but he has made it known he wants Labour to close ranks behind the prime minister. Cabinet Office Minister Ed Miliband said Mr Brown was the right leader during the current economic downturn."

Are we all ready for the false camaraderie and backslapping? The great pretense?

"Close ranks behind Gordon Brown"; he can't see what they are doing, then when the time is right they can stab him in the back. I bet every time his phone goes he thinks "is that Jack Straw?".
Enjoy your holiday as PM, treasure it as it will be your last.

This latest election defeat is just another nail in an already well-sealed coffin for Brown and Labour.

Re #71 oldnat

The deafening silence from all the usual English suspects to your excellent explanation of the realities of electoral life if Scotland speaks volumes about why the union is in such danger.

It really does seem that the Tories rather than wanting devolution for themselves believe that the Westminster rules all system is best and are just sorry that NuLabour "gave away" some of its power to revolting Scots and Welsh.

Maybe they'd like to bring back Direct rule for Northern Ireland, too or even reconquer those republican revolutionaries in Dublin as a prelude to Empire Mark 3?

As you seem to be coming round to the idea of a loose democratic union I seem to be more and more driven the other way.

Change we can believe in.................

That's what the people of this country want............every electoral test of public opinion in the last few months is shouting this out loud and clear.......but to deaf ears!

The fact is that GB cannot deliver this change. I think Robert Mugabe got it right when he referred to GB as a "dot"! He lacks respect, authority and now trust. He lacks the "vision" to inspire the younger generation and his track record as Chancellor is now unravelling fast, as we all wake up to the fact that the 10 year NewLabour "party" was built on huge piles and piles of uncontrolled personal and Government debt, sky high taxation and wasteful spending.

It is time for a new direction, for us to start living within our means with smaller government on our backs. We need to initiate a war on our streets against the knife weilding criminals and we need to lift the war this Goverment has waged incessantly against the motorists of the UK. GB is instinctly against all of this.......as is the Labour Party. State control and state dependency is their creed! We need policies to help the "aspirational poor" achieve their dreams not load them with debt for the rest of their lives!

The fact is that New Labour is doomed at the next General Election. There is NOTHING they can do to avoid defeat. But it is not good for democracy for any party to gain a landslide victory so the Labour Party must change it's leader to try to claw itself back in the opinion polls, then call an election so that GB cannot hang on to the keys of No 10 for another 22 wretched and excruciating months!

As Norman Lamont once said.........he referred to his position as being in office but not in power..............and that paralysis has now gripped this Goverment from top to bottom. Nobody in the Labour party will run for leader and none of them want to face the verdict of the electorate. They are a bunch on bottlers holding on to the luxury trappings of office at the taxpayers expense!

It's time to end this tired looking Government.................and that is the message that every election in this country is sending to the man without an mandate.....GB!

#86 Brownedov

See my #58 on Brian Taylor's blog.

I can't take much more of the incessant whining from these English posters with huge chips on their shoulders, on this blog.

65 patrea, So what are you saying, are you suggesting that any political commentator should either publish the way you want or they should say nothing is that what you want ,yet some of you people say that GB is trying to form a police state.
For your rather information there are millions out here that totally disagree with you.

70 badsworthy,I see that you wrote this post at 1.23AM I think that you must have just come in from a night on the town.
I am sure when you woke up this morning and read your post it must have made you cringe as it did most right thinking people. best go back to bed and have a long rest before writing another post.

Why do some posts simply not get through?

Even when they have been checked to ensure there is no fundamental problems with their structure?

Well, what a surprise.

A nothing post makes it.

Maybe any earlier postings were "nothing", but at least they were comments.

Can't be bothered to re-write all the original stuff.

Just accept that there are too many laws, rules and regulations. This government believes that introducing new rules somehow changes the real world.

Ask your local MP how many of the seventeen or eighteen new rules accepted every Parliament working day they have read, understand and agree with.

So MPs get 75 days summer break. Good deal. I'd prefer them to be allowed only 75 days to consider every single bit of new laws and regulations, so at least a few people in our society can understand what's going on.

Brown's problem is that he follows Blair in believing that a new bit of regulation achieves something.

What did he do to ensure that his creation - the FSA - would really act when Banks made a complete frolics of things? Nothing.

I live in a fairly peaceful town. Over eight years, I have seen police on the street three times. What other activities could they have than just being around to reassure people?

75 xraspecs Your perception of the Labour party cabinet is totally wrong what you see there are young vibrant energetic men and women all there on the merits not selected by family background the labour party is open to people from all walks of life not the chosen few.
Take a look at the back bench Tories the've been there since Adam was a boy, the've never done anything else other than attend meetings of their other interests while collecting their life remuneration for sitting and making the odd comment which is always cheered by the rest of their party because of the rarity for them to have anything sensible to say.
Where would you place David Cameron or Gideon Osbourne on your list of experienced competent MPs cameron known falure by association with Lamont Osbourne no experience of anything, Hague defeated Tory leader dumped immediately after lost election also the same with Michael Howard, Ian Duncan Smith similar story, or would you like to go back to those fine men who are still hovering in the background John Redwood Peter Lilley Tim yeo Andrew lansley and these are the people that the Tories are clamouring to lead the country.
We need young blood in todays world and as many women as men.
Most of parliament on both sides need to retire and leave some of those safe seats to younger people, to keep up with life as it is today, there are some exceptions of course but you have to remember that like all professions you cant be expected to know it all the day/week/ or year that you begin.but you do need to have had some experience of life in the real World.

Re #91 fairlyopenmind
"Why do some posts simply not get through?"

Because the parser can't translate your comment to full-formed HTML.

If your comment was accepted, you'll always see your a new comment number, you login and the text "This comment is awaiting moderation" (unless the thread has 500+ posts). If that doesn't appear, pressing the Back button in your browser should take you back to your post, but to be on the safe side, copy it to the clipboard just in case.

If you use HTML tags, make sure they're properly closed. If you use special characters like &, >, or < use the HTML Entity from "Special Characters in HTML", but beware that not all are represented in the font used.

Hope that helps.

81 carrotsneedquangoes, I'm sure your fatherinlaw is a fine man ,
I have not been too active on these blogs yesterday and today you know that I am not in the least afraid or to embarrassed to as they say show my face as you know or you should know that I have written a post to two of these blogs, if you need me to say it again I am very happy that your happy that the SNP won the Glasgow east
by election, I am sorry not only that labour lost that seat but I am more sorry that it was the SNP that won it, my absence yesterday I can assure you had nothing to do with that event .I do have a life outside these blogs thank God but unfortunately a problem cropped up in my life of far more importance than a by election and I am afraid it will take a while to resolve, but enough of that ,thats my problem.
cant say I was too enamoured with the vision of your nookie situation but I can understand you were.

95:
Very brave of you to inhabit this blog especially at this time. I realise that you and countless tens of thousands like you are still in awe of your leader and always will be in spite of his failings because of your inherent hatred of The Conservatives and all that you assume they stand for. You are fast becoming a dying breed but I can appreciate that people can have differing views and sentiments according to their particular experiences. Long live democracy!

93:
As far as MPs having experience of life before taking up Office I saw an item on BBC recently where it was noted that on the whole MPs of all parties led a very closeted experience devoid of any real appreciation of life in the outside world. They go straight from school to university to being activists and party workers and are then jettisoned into office with little experience or real knowledge of the outside world and the pressures exerted on Joe Bloggs. There are some notable exceptions of course (ex union men such as John Prescott) but even he had experience of only one side of the coin.

96 Waldorf you gravely misunderstand me I have no love for Gordon Brown, I respect him and think he is getting a raw deal from his critics, many things are being attributed to him that are quite unjust, his biggest problem in my opinion is that he is just unlucky I dont go along with all the stories about what a bad guy he is. he has done much for the working people of this country. I am not going to go into one of these lists that many on here like to write no one believes them anyway, I prefered Tony Blair I liked his style the ease that he dealt with people of all creeds and colours and the way he conducted himself generally, he was criticised for mostly having a smile on his face but it had a feel good factor but now Gb is criticised for not having a smile on his face.
I do believe that our remarks about politicians has become to personal. I am probably as guilty as many on here but there are a hard core of Tory sympathisers that are being allowed to go to far.
Criticism is fair enough but personal attacks are uncalled for,
To go on to your next point I am not now and have never been in awe of GB in fact I cant remember being in awe of anyone in my life except perhaps Dame Ellen MacArthur. and of course my Wife.
I do not have a inherent hatred of the conservative party in fact up until the Thatcher era I was myself a Tory but after their behaviour in the eighties and nineties which by far exceeds any wrong doing by the Labour party in the last ten years, I think it would take the Angel Gabrie to come down to run the Tories before I could find it in my heart to vote for them again,
I can never belong to a dying breed because my nature wont allow that to happen but I am not swayed easily to abandon friends or people who I have no major difference with.
Wouldn't life be difficult if we all thought the same,Vive La Difference!
Please dont take it upon yourself to correct this text, it becomes tiresome after a while

Perhaps Gordon Brown's name will go down in history as an expletive expression like
the famous Gordon Bennett. Come on let's stsrt using it, instead of Cor Blimey say 'Gordon Brown' with the appropriate emphasis.

Is it within the operating protocol now of a BBC journalist to make bald statements, as if of fact, like:-

"Though many in Labour - from the bottom of the party to the very top of the cabinet - have reached the conclusion they'd be better off without Mr Brown " ?

I'm no supporter of Brown, but surely such assertions must, or at least should, be backed by some kind of evidence?