Gordon Brown on the brink?

[CapelDodger]

In some respects, yes, but it is bitterly unfair about the expenses scandal making Brown a bad Prime Minister.

His response to it is what showed him as a bad Prime Minister - and a bad leader. He dithers about mouthing platitudes until he finally comes out with something that sounds like a mission statement. Compare that to Cameron.

The abuse has likely been going on for decades, and the sheer magnitude of this event would have hit any Prime Minister hard.

Brown has been in Parliament for twenty-five years, he must have been aware of the culture of expense-padding, and there have been precursor tremors. Details of expenses were due to be published in July anyway. Yet when the ordure hits the fan Brown's like a rabbit in the headlights.

Not up to it.

I also disagree that no Prime Minister other than Blair could deliver such a victory for Labour. Attlee anyone (won more votes in his 1951 defeat than Labour won in 2001 too)?

A monkey could have won for Labour in '97. Just as a monkey could beat New Labour in 2010.

Attlee had some advantages as well. Unlike Blair, though, he was bloody brilliant and a politician of enormous substance.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

You may be right about Brown's response to the expenses scandal. His youtube response may have sealed his fate, and signified how he had a severe problem connecting with the public at a time in which we so desperately needed it.

I still believe that any Prime Minister would have been highly damaged by such a blow to British democracy. The expenses scandal would have been catastrophic to whoever appeared to be residing over the head of government. It is easier to be in opposition, but Cameron does win plundits for his fast response.

Attlee had some advantages as well. Unlike Blair, though, he was bloody brilliant and a politician of enormous substance.

I'm waiting for Attlee's return.

 

[Uzzy]

So why didn't Cameron protest the Employement Oppurtunities act? What exactly are you voting for them for? What do you like about them?

Which one? The one that allows people to opt out of the minimum wage if they so choose? I don't see anything wrong with that.

I like Cameron's stance on civil liberties, for one. His environmental concerns are very appealing as well. That, and the Tories can beat Labour.

 

[CapelDodger]

Osbourne on BBC, clearly worried about a Prime Minister Johnson. Hypocritical in the extreme by complaining about an unelected PM, considering Major from 1990-2.

Macmillan, 57-59. Callaghan 76-79. Brown (gawdelpus) 07-?. And that's just post-War.

 

[CapelDodger]

Which one? The one that allows people to opt out of the minimum wage if they so choose? I don't see anything wrong with that.

If opting out of the minimum wage can be a condition of employment that's the end of the minimum wage. And if it can't be a condition of employment nobody will opt out.

What do you think it's meant to achieve?

 

[Uzzy]

If opting out of the minimum wage can be a condition of employment that's the end of the minimum wage. And if it can't be a condition of employment nobody will opt out.

What do you think it's meant to achieve?

I could see it being useful if a company is seriously struggling and needs to lower wages for the workers temporarily. But as agreement is needed between both employer and employee, I really don't see an issue. It won't be a condition of employment, unless the employer really doesn't want any workers.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

What happens to the worker who decides to cut their pay to £2.00, and the other who keeps it at £5.72, only for the company to still go under?

More to the point, what happens when the employer sends out a letter saying that he can no longer afford to keep people on at £5.72 (despite earning 30K a year)? It pressures the employees to drop their pay.

 

[CapelDodger]

You may be right about Brown's response to the expenses scandal. His youtube response may have sealed his fate ...

Trying to connect with the yoof ...

He hasn't got a bloody clue.

... and signified how he had a severe problem connecting with the public at a time in which we so desperately needed it.

He's a nerd, basically. A wonk. Not a leader.

I still believe that any Prime Minister would have been highly damaged by such a blow to British democracy. The expenses scandal would have been catastrophic to whoever appeared to be residing over the head of government. It is easier to be in opposition, but Cameron does win plundits for his fast response.

Cameron is quick on his feet and does have an advantage (apart from it being the Torygraph that's choreographed the scandal). Labour does money-scandals; Tories do sex-scandals. There's no sex in the Torygraph.

Even the moat-guy with his "This is all about jealousy!" is exactly the sort of Tory that Cameron wants shot of.

I'm waiting for Attlee's return.

Or failing that, Lloyd George . You know where you are with a real rascal. He'd have shrugged this off while getting blown by his secretary.

 

[Lucky]

It is easier to be in opposition, but Cameron does win plundits for his fast response.

What a great term for a sycophantic pundit - I like it!

And of course you're right. Cameron surely has won the plundits' support for his election campaign cause. Our media sages are behind him to a man, woman and obscenely inflated salary (plus expenses).

 

[Rolfe]

Trying to connect with the yoof ...

He hasn't got a bloody clue.

What's on your iPod?

The Arctic Monkeys.

Gawd help us all.

I very much doubt that he even has an iPod. Or knows that one of these things can swallow the complete works of Richard Wagner for breakfast and come back for Mozart.

Rolfe.

 

[CapelDodger]

I could see it being useful if a company is seriously struggling and needs to lower wages for the workers temporarily. But as agreement is needed between both employer and employee, I really don't see an issue. It won't be a condition of employment, unless the employer really doesn't want any workers.

Who's to judge if a company is seriously struggling or is simply taking advantage of the opportunity to make it a de facto condition of employment? Do you want to define "seriously" and "struggling" in this context?

The employees we're talking about are already earning minimum wage. They are power-free people in the main, not organised and without much fall-back. That's why there's a minimum wage - to prevent exploitation.

When the minimum wage was introduced it did not reduce employment. Why would taking it away increase employment?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

What's on your iPod?

The Arctic Monkeys.

Gawd help us all.

I very much doubt that he even has an iPod. Or knows that one of these things can swallow the complete works of Richard Wagner for breakfast and come back for Mozart.

Rolfe.

Is Brown perhaps listening to the bellowing tune of "Requiem Mass" by Mozart right now?

 

[CapelDodger]

What a great term for a sycophantic pundit - I like it!

"Plundit" is a perfectly cromulent word. It's a combination of "plunder" and "plaudit".

And of course you're right. Cameron surely has won the plundits' support for his election campaign cause. Our media sages are behind him to a man, woman and obscenely inflated salary (plus expenses).

Expenses are a sore point in the mainstream media world. (As to salaries, don't even go there.) That goes some way to explaining the vitriolic response, I suspect. When I think back to the good old days there's a delicious irony in it .

 

[Rolfe]

Is Brown perhaps listening to the bellowing tune of "Requiem Mass" by Mozart right now?

Oh please. Verdi.

Tremens factus sum ego et timeo, dum discussio venerit atque ventura ira.
Dies illa, dies iræ, calamitatis et miseriae, dies illa, dies magna et amara valde!

Rolfe.

 

[CapelDodger]

Surprisingly enough, UW, parties change. The Labour of today is nothing like the Labour of 1983, for instance.

It isn't even Labour. It's New Labour. The Blair/Brown/Mandelson project, which has blossomed and died wth their political careers.

Labour is coming back. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Surprisingly enough, the Tories of today are nothing like the Tories of 1983 either.

More so than you might think. They still represent the same career politicians that New Labour always has. The population that has brought this disrepute on Parliament.

Which I resent, old Roundhead that I am at heart. Robin Cook, where are you when we need you?

 

[CapelDodger]

What is "The Arctic Monkeys"? Is it a Scottish Labour faction ?

 

[Lucky]

Expenses are a sore point in the mainstream media world. (As to salaries, don't even go there.) That goes some way to explaining the vitriolic response, I suspect. When I think back to the good old days there's a delicious irony in it .

We may not be thinking of the same 'old days', or possibly I have a different definition of 'good' - anyway, I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify that remark.

 

[CapelDodger]

We may not be thinking of the same 'old days', or possibly I have a different definition of 'good' - anyway, I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify that remark.

The "old days" would be the 80's in London, when I hung out quite a lot with journalists, and they were good by any description. Many were the afternoon drinking sessions written off to a journalistic expense-account. It was expected. Happy days, as I vaguely recall.

The TV crowd were more coke-oriented and spent their own money like water. Those were happy days as well, and I remember them quite distinctly .

 

[richardm]

the Tories of today are nothing like the Tories of 1983 either ... I vote on what a party is now, not what it was years ago under different leaders.

What worries me is that the Tories of today looked at the Tories in 1983 and thought "They've got the right idea, I think I'll join that party". Makes me a bit suspicious of what they're thinking now.

Well, I guessed that the reason the European poll results wouldn't be seen until Sunday was because the polls are on different days across Europe.

But it's 11.30ish on Friday at the moment, and out of the English council elections we only have 3 out of 34 declared. Get a bloody move on!

 

[Darat]

While I agree that Blair would have doubtlessly spun it better (and would have apologised much quicker - Broon seems to have a huge problem saying sorry for anything), I am not sure that your conclusion that the details of the claims mean it should have hit the Tories harder. I think the claims that have caused the biggest outrage are the "phantom interest" ones where MPs claimed for mortgage payments that never existed - I think these were both Labour? Sure duck ponds and moats make decent soundbites for a bit of comedy, but you can't make any mileage out of it when your own MPs are claiming for non existent expenses.

Willing to be convinced though....

The Conservatives are the ones claiming they have changed so they are the ones vulnerable to the charge of "same old Tories", and I think that is the political points scoring that could have been made from this. The idea of a multi-millionaire claiming for a moat to be cleaned should have been a powerful "class" symbol for Labour.