For those of you who dont know Gordon Brown is the British prime minister who took over from tony blair when he stepped down and all i want to know is what you think of him? personnaly i think he is a not a bad PM, but is not doing enought to help this country although he is doing his best, i just think he got dropped into the deep end when Blair steped down, exspecially with the war and the housing problems, ect.
I'm afraid I can't answer this question, and I'm not sure many others here can, simply because like there are very few Australians here, so too are there very few Poms (Brits, however you would prefer to be known :P)
That all said, this probably tells you that both Blair and Brown have not, for the past few years, made all that many headlines. In his final term, the only significant commentary I heard on Blair was the amount of criticism he was copping for being part of the "Coalition of the willing" re: the war in Iraq. As for Brown, the moderately liberal media outlets were giving cautious approval to his appointment, but since then I've heard very little.
When Is Labourâs saviour really to be found in the man deeply immersed in the policies that drove millions of voters and tens of thousands of activists away?
I was first elected to Parliament, I looked forward to meeting and seeing in action close up our major politicians, many of whom had previously only been a face on the TV to me. But Gordon Brown has been strangely absent from my Parliamentary experience. Despite having a huge influence that strays well beyond the Treasury, he rarely debates, rarely answers questions and even in his own Treasury patch leaves most of the Parliamentary speaking to his junior ministers.
And not just in Parliament. On issue after issue, and Iraq above all, he had to be dragged almost kicking and screaming to speak up for his partyâs policies â" even though all the time he has been signing the cheques for them.
What a weird Prime Minstership it would be to have someone who shies away so much from public leadership. You do not get the impression that this is someone spoiling to get stuck into arguing his corner. Indeed, granting independence to the Bank of England â" Labourâs most striking policy in 1997 â" was carefully kept out of their election manifesto and away from public debate.
So â" will we see a different Brown if he makes it to Number Ten? After all, you canât send your minions in to bat for you at Prime Ministerâs Questions. But even if we do, this background means Brown is surprisingly unpractised in defending his positions in public under sustained pressure. Will he manage it? Judging by what I have seen so far in Parliament, it is an open question.
The breadth of his carefully prepared and cautiously expressed views has, to his credit, been striking at times: such as his sweeping analysis of the way in which during the twentieth century the switch in income tax from being a tax on a small part of the population to being a tax on much of the population has necessitated a significant change in the way that taxes and public spending are defended and justified.
Being Prime Minister, however, is not the same as writing interesting academic treatises. And his big ideas are a very mixed bag: tax credits have been a vastly over-complicated failure and Tube privatisation in London has seen millions squandered, whilst independence for the Bank of England (a policy lifted from the Liberal Democrats) has worked and much credit is due to him on Third World debt and aid.
On that issue he showed decisiveness and leadership, but on far too many others â" such as pensions, the NHS and climate change - his response has been to set up long-term commissions under outsiders to tell him what to do. We have all had to suffer from lack of action whilst he has inched towards a conclusion.
Now, Iâm no objector to careful consideration of issues, getting in advice, or preparing the ground carefully â" but reviews need to be a means to making an effective, timely decision - and not a means to prevaricate. This slow moving, hugely cautious approach could â" like his shying away from public leadership - be caught out very badly if he is in Number 10.
A liability too could be the long, long history of political infighting involving Brown and others. This dates much further back than Blair announcing he would not fight another election. As Philip Gould has recounted, it even goes back before the 1992 general election:
"The whole thing was so debilitating because every time Gordon appeared on TV, someone in John [Smith]'s camp would say, 'Look, it's another bid for the leadership', Patricia [Hewitt] remembers."
Someone I canât quite see fifteen plus years of squabbling stop overnight at the leadership election. Indeed, Brownâs habit of cutting out others from decisions (as with cutting our Blair from key decisions on the Euro and the public by keeping his independence for the Bank of England policies secret during the 1997 election) makes for an unlikely leader of a team.
Neither is he a likely candidate to give Labour a fresh new look. He is very firmly one of the faces of now not-so New Labour. James Carville, who helped Bill Clinton win the US Presidency in 1992, famously wrote a sign in the office saying the election was about, âthe economy, stupidâ. But people tend to forget what Carville wrote before that on his sign - 'Change vs more of the same'. And Brown is definitely more of the same. Blairâs record as Premier is as much about Brown as it is about Blair.
In fact, look at all those issues that most motivated Labour supporters to switch to us in 2005: top up fees, (lack of) free care for the elderly, Iraq and more. They all have Gordon Brown's fingerprints all over them. Is Labourâs saviour really to be found in the man deeply immersed in the policies that drove millions of voters and tens of thousands of activists away?
There is though, one issue on which Brownâs judgement has been impeccable. As he told Paddy Ashdown a few years ago whilst discussing our partiesâ respective economic policies: âYou lot [i.e. the Liberal Democrats] were right.â
Now that would make a fun election poster for the next election!
gordon brown istoo indecisive and he doesnt get involved enough. Tony Blair would be seen around a lot and he was much more outspokenand a better leader i think. Gordon Brown wasnt even elected into power. He doesnt even deserve the spot.
Remember when the Tories came in before the Falklands war? They were great.... until the second PM mucked up. Then everyone hated the Tories and voted in Labour. They did well until their second PM (Mr. Brown), so now everyone votes for the Tories again. British politics are hopeless. Look at the Glasgow East by-election! Labour won that for the past 50 years! They lost to the Tories! ON NOES! Then Mr. Cameron (Tory big cheese) demanded a general election! It's all hopeless!
The tories were alrite but they screwed it up witht the mad cow disease fiasco. Labour did ok for the first term but it got worse and worse. I swear labour lost in scotland to the scottish national party didnt they. The tories won all over the country. Also i hate Cameron. All he does is stand around all day being young. DO SOMETHING. I would vote for the lib dems but they are a shambles and make themselves un electable. Also labour rele annoyed with the 10p tax rate thing. That hit me prety hard. Soemtimes i think sod it il just vote for the monster raving looney party. They are peopleto be admired.
Blair wasnt war mongerin. He was just Bushs bitch. Blair was at least a good PR man and got himself seen and heard and was confident. Brown seems very shy and unfriendly and that has hurt his image. On the wjole blair is much better in my opinion.
Blair wasn't Bush's bitch. Every British PM is America's bitch. It's been that way since 1946 when Churchill used the "special relationship" quote. After the Suez crisis, it was so obvious that the UK would do everything the US said.
Yes i didnt mind so much when clinton was in charge or when reagen was. They were both great presidents(compared to bush). But the thing that annoys me is that George Bush is a complete moron. Gordon Brown is so feeble hhe is obviously going to be the same.
As an American it's nice to see that my government isn't the only one (among the western world) that needs some work.
Theres only 1 thing worse than having an idiot for a leader like u americans. Having a leader who takes orders from an idiotic leader (with regards to foreign policy).
"Democracy is the worst form of government in the world except for all he other ones."
Its not the form of government which is at fault. Democracy is fine by me its just the systems in place in the UK are ridiculous. There needs to be drastic reform in many areas including taxation and election systems. I think proportional representation would be far better for this coountry as it would give the lib dems a chance. However i wouldnt take it so far as to let it be like the weimar of germany in the 20s where nothing got done. I just think more in that direction. Many people in this country would gladdly accept those changes. It just needs a PM with the political will and cojones to make that happen.
As an American it's nice to see that my government isn't the only one (among the western world) that needs some work. Theres only 1 thing worse than having an idiot for a leader like u americans. Having a leader who takes orders from an idiotic leader (with regards to foreign policy).
I'm sorry, Woody, but you shouldn't start a contest between whose leader is a bigger loser because you can't compete with the good old US of A.
