Commentators

8° London Hi 9°C / Lo 6°C

John Rentoul: It's all over for our Prime Minister

We are back to the Seventies in the sense of alternating parties in government

You know it is over when they laugh like that. Most of the noise in the Chamber of the House of Commons is uncouth and childish; it is also often manufactured, designed to harass and demoralise the other side. But when Gordon Brown headed for the exit after Prime Minister's Questions, and had to turn round, realising that he was supposed to making a statement about Afghanistan and Pakistan, the laughter from the opposition benches – and from some on the Government side – was genuine. It was because it was genuine that it was so cruel.

The Prime Minister has lost his way. He has lost his place in the script. You know it is over when Nick Clegg cuts it as a figure of moral authority, and Brown is reduced to making up numbers such as £1.4bn as the cost of allowing all 36,000 Gurkhas the right to live here. Even if it did come to £1.4bn, which is doubtful, why should we draw the line there, after £175bn of fiscal stimulus, on the one immigration issue on which even Empire loyalists are on the liberal side of the argument?

Brown has lost the argument about the Gurkhas so comprehensively that David Cameron did not even need to rehearse his Mr Angry act. He did Mr Bipartisan instead, congratulating Clegg for setting the pace on the issue. It was a smart bit of tactical cross-party generosity that diminished Brown further.

No, you know it is over when BBC journalists start interviewing each other about how much the Prime Minister's "authority" has been reduced. They were at it this week over the withdrawal of Brown's plan to reform MPs' expenses. They used to do it to Tony Blair when he was at bay over the cash for honours investigation, but they didn't laugh at him. Blair was spared the added humiliation of YouTube ridicule.

You know it is over when black is reported as white. When everything is fitted to the template of retreat, disarray and incompetence. Just a small example from this week: David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary, repeated his ingenious plan to make identity cards more palatable by making it compulsory for everyone to have a passport. This was reported as Blunkett, "the father of identity cards", calling for the scheme to be scrapped.

We have been here before. In fact, we have been here twice in living memory. James Callaghan and John Major seemed similarly doomed, especially in retrospect, as they limped towards their conclusions – in Callaghan's case 30 years ago this Sunday. But Callaghan retained his dignity and not even Major cut so miserable a figure as Brown does now.

Those were "sea change" moments. Although we should be wary of granting sly Sunny Jim the excuse that he was up against the inevitable: his observation that there are times when it "does not matter what you say or what you do" concealed his regret that he had not gone to the country the previous autumn when he could conceivably have held on against Margaret Thatcher.

There is always something you can do. Major probably should have stood down, as he briefly consulted close colleagues about doing, immediately after the collapse of his ERM policy. Michael Heseltine might have swashed some buckle and gone to the country. Brown could stand down now, as even Paul Routledge, his formerly sympathetic biographer, suggested last week, and let someone else try to limit the Conservative gains at the election. Routledge and I, who have not agreed on much for a decade and a half, agree that Alan Johnson is Labour's best hope.

I think it is worth a try, from a Labour point of view, even if it succeeds only in cutting the Conservative majority – and the current state of the betting markets points to a majority for David Cameron of 62. Some Labour people don't see the point. Their unspoken belief is that the next election is a write-off, so the party might as well get used to a long period in the wilderness.

This is sea-change thinking, otherwise known as giving up. My view is that it is worse than unwise; it is a mistake. It is based on a fallacy, namely that Labour will have been in office for 13 years and before that the Tories were in for 18, so whoever wins the election will occupy Downing Street for a long stretch.

On the contrary, it seems more likely that we really are back to the Seventies, in the sense of alternating parties in government and inconclusive elections. To be brutal, the next election is a good one to lose. The state of the public finances is such that, if the Conservatives win, as Cameron told his party's spring forum in Cheltenham on Sunday, they will be "in an age when we're asking people to put up with tax rises and spending cuts to pay for Labour's debt crisis". Note that he said tax rises and spending cuts, because I'm not sure that his audience in the hall heard him.

When the Tory members find out – after, say, George Osborne's third tax-raising Budget – they are not going to be pleased. Nor will the British voters be. Cameron can talk the New Labour talk of difficult choices but when it falls to him actually to make some we are not going to like it. So it is quite possible that, if the Conservatives win next year's election, they will be unpopular quite quickly. It is not as if the electorate are even under any illusion, as they were when Blair came in with a 93 per cent approval rating, that Cameron represents a "new politics".

Provided the Labour Party does not fall apart – and it is not divided by anything like the quasi-Marxism that afflicted it in 1981 or the issue of Europe that split the Tories after 1992 – general elections promise to be competitive again. So things are bad for Brown, but this is not a sea change. There is certainly nothing inevitable about a long period of Conservative government. Indeed, we could be heading for a long period of hung parliaments. Yesterday was the right day for Nick Clegg to shine.

John Rentoul is chief political commentator for The Independent on Sunday. You can read his blog at http://johnrentoul.independentminds.livejournal.com/

More from John Rentoul

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
Never, not ever...
[info]sobatai wrote:
Wednesday, 29 April 2009 at 11:59 pm (UTC)
Golem Brown will never, not ever, voluntarily hand over the keys to No 10.
No matter how much he is ridiculed (his youtube expenses thing is thoroughly disconcerting - what idiot allowed that to appear on the web?) and despised.
He'll never do the honourable thing and if I were a betting man I'd have the Tories to emerge from the election with a majority well into three figures, with the Lib Dems challenging Labour for second place. Labour are going to be squeezed left, right and centre.
Re: Never, not ever...
[info]jamesbrett12 wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 10:59 am (UTC)
BROWN'S AUTHORITY COLLAPSES:
[info]bgarvie wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 03:59 am (UTC)
Brown's authority is collapsing. He has no real support in Parliament nor in the country. Today he will incredibly try and push through pathetic measures to pretend he is dealing with MP's allowances. If he tries to substitute the second home allowance with a daily attendance allowance he will be treating the electorate with contempt. They are fully aware that those MPs not claiming a second home allowance will also financially gain for nothing. Why should MPs be given an allowance for turning up at work? This is outrageous.
The Labour administration under the 'leadership' of Mr. Speaker dictates Parliament will only be sitting for 126 days this year. Those MPs (living over 50 miles away) needing accommodation should be given a night stop allowance based on a long contract rate for a B & B or local 2 star hotel and meal allowance. All expenses to be receipted. This would stop the abuse of tax payers money.
The chickens come home to roost?
[info]mannygoldstein wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 04:33 am (UTC)
As has been well-documented, Gordon Brown had becoming Prime Minister as his goal from the very start of his career. The chosen vehicle for his ambition was the Labour party, but his goal was always power for himself, an end in itself, not power as a means of change.

As a 'son of the manse' an undergraduate student and then a Ph.D, a brief career in the media before becoming a full-time politician, he is the very epitome of 'the political class'. Just look at the divide between his career and that of Keir Hardie!

Gordon Brown is not working class, has never lived or experienced a working class lifestyle, has never had a 'real' job and yet leads the Labour Party. As has no been made clear, he got there not by hard work alone, but also by using the likes of Damian MacBride, Derek Draper, Ed Balls, Tom Watson and Liam Brown to deal with potential opponents who may have stood in his way.

After a decade as Chancellor,and several years as Prime Minister, can anyone state his contribution to improving the lot of the working class, the traditional supporters of the Labour Party? He has betrayed their heritage and left the party bankrupt, both emotionally and financially.

His pernicious influence will linger long after his ignominious departure. Having inherited a substantial parliamentary majority, he has spent his time in petty, tactical, partisan politics and will surely go down as the worst Leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister in modern times. Laughter and scorn are a most fitting legacy for his performance.

Re: The chickens come home to roost?
[info]radney wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 07:05 am (UTC)
This response is better than the original article.
Re: The chickens come home to roost? - [info]liam_ohuigin - Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 07:55 am (UTC) Expand
Re: The chickens come home to roost? - [info]1984prole - Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 08:52 am (UTC) Expand
Re: The chickens come home to roost? - [info]brumbar - Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 01:43 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: The chickens come home to roost? - [info]singingbird85 - Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 03:22 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]cm999 wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 07:19 am (UTC)
Whilst Im no fan of Gordon Brown the bit that really scares me is the thought of the opposition running the place. Cameron and his Eton and city chums hardly fill me with confidence. I really dont see how they would have put the country in a better place than we currently are. The next election may yet come down to the better the devil you know.
The matter of Civil Liberties
[info]tallbendyman wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 08:50 am (UTC)
is clearly of no concern to you then. There is clear ... blue ... water between New Stasi and the Tories on this, and had I to, this ex Labour voter of 32 years would vote Tory to get rid of a Labour MP. Won't need to as we have an excellent sitting Lib Dem MP; regardless, our common task as a country is to destroy New Labour for ever, to bury them and to drive a stake through their heart.
Re: The matter of Civil Liberties - [info]dogsolitude_v2 - Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 03:11 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]justameggie - Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 09:14 am (UTC) Expand
The matter of Civil Liberties - [info]tallbendyman - Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 11:54 am (UTC) Expand
[info]ponkbutler wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 07:26 am (UTC)
What an incredibly poor level of political commentary both in the article from respondents!

This country has been dumbed down to a level far worse than silence - at least one can reflect in that.....
Swing-door Governments?
[info]rhinocircus wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 07:26 am (UTC)
John Rentoul appears to be satisfied that, Britain can look backwards to swing-door governments, or hung (should be hanged) Parliaments like the seventies for the future of British taxpayers. Why is this proclaimed to be the fate for Britain? Does he know something about the Parliamentary system and about the internal workings of British "democracy", which denies fundamental change to the archaic foundations of the mostly unwritten Constitution? Why does he, like so many other political journalists, commit Britain to a rotating door in Parliamentary limbo? Britain is a patient, who has been chronically ill for centuries, but must keep taking the same tablets--not to get well--but to remain "comfortable" until the final demise. Where are those journalists and political reporters with the guts to say that, the time is long overdue for change in the fossilised Parliamentary system. The taxpayers deserve better for their taxes, than the marionettes performing to the same eternal act of self-serving protocol. Cut the number of MPs for a start--Britain has more MPs to run its little island of 60 million people, than India has to govern 1.5 billion! Give Britain an independent second House--not of Lords--but Representatives of Industry, Labour and Commerce--elected by the people, for the people. Create a written Constitution to reflect and protect tried and tested human values, to be compatible with a Bill of Rights for 21st century society. Long overdue, is an Independent Judiciary--free from Parliamentary fingering. Rid Parliament of the ridiculous ceremonial mummery and Queen's speeches--they may reflect history, but have no place in serious government. The indolence of the system, begets generation upon generation of indolent and self-seeking MPs (with few extraordinary exceptions) and furthers the rotating door practice. Write your views on this John--and tell Britons it can't be done because . . . .
Re: Swing-door Governments?
[info]taryzor wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 01:10 pm (UTC)
Dear rhinocircus

The only response I can give to your contibution is to say next time please write in paragraghs. Its much more reader-friendly I find.
best hope
[info]shergar999 wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 07:28 am (UTC)

Alan Johnson is Labour's best hope. ALAN JOHNSON! Go and find the tape measure Samantha, you'll be buying new curtains very soon.
Dream on John...
[info]sportingmac wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 07:35 am (UTC)
...I think your analysis of who should lose the next election and why is not a new thought - my evidence is the street/pub-talk that has been going on now for over a year. But I suspect that Brown the Clown knows it will be a very long time before there is a such a huge majority for any party again - and sits there using a 'scorched earth' policy to ensure it.

What a way to treat a great country - he should be tried for his arrogance and stupidity - and his sentence should be to be declared bankrupt - that would be some salve on a few wounds at least.

As for the next Tory government - I would raise income taxes immediately and high enough to require a once only rise so that the tax rise is associated with the Labour party's incompetence and unwillingness to do what needed to be done and what is right for the country now. Raising taxes gradually would suit Brown's plan to smear the Torys under his scorched earth plan.

I think we should only elect politicians and certainly the PM if they pass a common-sense and competency test - like most businesses do when recruiting. And we should hold an annual assessment and sack the buggers if they fail. It is after all a paid job for them.

Re: Dream on John...
[info]popskihaynes wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 01:30 pm (UTC)
Good sound comments, I particularly agree with the immediate sharp tax rise, definitely the right thing to do both tactically and practically plus, it might shore up the UK's credit rating which will reduce the interest we have to pay on our Bonds.

I don't know that the author is correct on on 1970's style rapid changes in Government, the key psychological circumstances are very different between then and now. I would equally agree that perhaps 2 consecutive terms or Parliaments may become more normal than 3 or 4.

However, I do believe that an incoming Cameron Government will share something with Thatcher 30 years ago which is the tacit support of the majority of voters even if they voted for Labour, the Libdems or a Nationalist Party, for them to get on with the job and "get it all sorted".

Gordon Brown is a very poor politician, being a political street fighter doesn't help because he has totally missed the point. He is still thinking "Labour Investment" vs "Tory Cuts" but after the Budget when the Kings Magic Suit of Clothes was revealed for what it really was, even ardent Labour supporters know that it is "Tories Bailing Out a sinking ship" and cutting away some rigging will be part of that.

As for changing Leader, will it really make a difference and anyway two unelected Prime Ministers is at least one too many and a General Election must follow immediately. Also John Rentoul is fooling himself if he thinks anyone on the Front Bench is a credible candidate, these were the same bunch of Pansy Potters that ran away from challenging Brown in 2007 and all wanted to be "Deputy Dawg" well Hattie got that one right, fetch Hattie, fetch !
Re: The chickens come home to roost?
[info]ptstroud wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 08:07 am (UTC)
Excellent response mannygoldstein I certainly have nothing of note to add.
Brown the destroyer
[info]tallbendyman wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 08:15 am (UTC)
Brown has been a disaster. Unlike the MSM, many ordinary folk knew that he would be, and that he was waved into office by a pack of obeisant and spineless Labour MPs who thought him the next best thing sliced bread, makes it even worse. As an Ex Labour voter of 32 years, I am of two minds - should he go now, to limit the damage, or should he stay to ensure the complete dismantling and interment of the ghastly experiment on the nation that New Labour has been.

Above all, so lacking in common humanity does he seem to be that I can rais no sympathy for him. I want to see him publicly humiliated. If ever a man deserved it, Brown does.
Re: Brown the destroyer
[info]celticwelshman wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 09:20 am (UTC)
As an ex Labour voter of a similar time period, I can't think of a thing to add tallbendyman, except to say, I just wish I could hibernate until it's all over, the whole experience from all sides gets more ridiculously sublime & painful to wittiness. The outcome of all this political jostling is worrying to, I for one fear the worst, the coming European elections might just clarify something of that thought. What a monumental mess.
Re: Brown the destroyer - [info]salford_roy - Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 12:39 pm (UTC) Expand
You Tube
[info]razygentry wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 08:42 am (UTC)

"Blair was spared the added humiliation of YouTube ridicule."

Oh I don't know about that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nupdcGwIG-g
RE: youtube
[info]garydumbill wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 08:48 am (UTC)
gordon's easy picking....come to thing of it they all are. check out this video-
http://www.vimeo.com/4162821

Re: youtube
[info]blairsupporter wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 10:18 am (UTC)
Great video, garydumbill.

It should make us all stop and wonder, though, why ANYONE should want to be a politician. The ridicule is never-ending and disproportionate, imho. I don't actually believe they are in it for themselves any more than we are all into some way of earning a living for ourselves. And before we throw them all out with the bathwater we should consider the alternative - a dictatorship or unelected monarchy, as in many countries in the world.

Gordon Brown, like most politicians I know - and I've known a few - is NOT a bad man with evil intent. But fate has not been kind to him since he took over the helm of one of the handful of MOST important jobs in the world. Even when he scores - it only seems to last five minutes. His judgement is questioned - so nothing new there, then. His sanity is put under the microsope - so - nothing new. HE IS a politician after all. We Brits have a tendency to think they're all insane.

For the record I was involved in a political party once - not Brown's - but I got out when I became disillusioned with the voters.

Sadly Gordon just does not have the articulacy or communication skills required in politics today. And that's just one thing he doesn't have.

I put this video together almost a year ago - 'HELP Gordon Brown'. Nothing much has changed, for the better anyway:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyd4gDU0NxI

And this one might remind you of what we had and lost not that long ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbwVsgASt7Q
Re: youtube - [info]bowesy - Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 08:49 pm (UTC) Expand
Mr. Bedonebyasyoudid.
[info]rassendyl wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 08:50 am (UTC)
Brown is a fitting subject for the attention of Mrs. Bedonebyasyoudid, the nemisis spirit in "Tom and The Water Babies". He and his cabal of "special advisors" bunkered in No. 10 Downing Street should be totally expunged from British political life at the next election. He could then draw Jobseekers Allowance, surely a very fitting fate.
Re: Mr. Bedonebyasyoudid.
[info]chanch5 wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 10:09 am (UTC)
-means tested of course!
Frying pan and fire
[info]wildbillhiccup wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 08:59 am (UTC)
So ,,if Gordon does finally get the message, and we all know how obtuse he is when it comes to facing the facts, who would replace him?

Harman? While Gordon merely irkes, Harperson really frightens me.
Re: Frying pan and fire
[info]salford_roy wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 12:47 pm (UTC)
I will probably be shot down and excoriated for this, but I always thought the ideal candidate to follow Blair/Brown was Alan Milburn.

he's got the Blair gift of performing well in debate and is a seasoned campaigner.
[info]adey_t wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 09:06 am (UTC)
If there is one thing that turns people off MPs its the way they laugh and howl at each other. If a child behaved the same way you'd give them a smack.

Brown should quit though, he has a young family that he must hardly see, he'd pick up a big cheque for his biography and could take it easy. He looks knackered compared to when he became PM.
Betrayal
[info]infohiway wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 09:22 am (UTC)
WHAT?
The Lib-Dems, being deluded: 'Pollyanna-esque' dreamers plus pro-fascist Europhiles, have been double-crossed by NuLab more times than John Rentoul has had hot dinners.
Their ability and failure to defeat NuLab over over 40-odd days 'detention' - WITHOUT CHARGES - FORCED THROUGH BY NICK CLEGG and company proves without doubt that the LibDems have no loyalty to the people (and their rights) whatsoever.




brown
[info]sidgreenstreet wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 09:38 am (UTC)
I've only seen the news edited performance of Prime Minister Brown on utube but it is very scary. That contrived smile and facial tick is symptomatic of a very disturbed individual. Surely there must be grounds for calling in the social services and having him taken away and locked up in the same care home as that women's mother in the news last week. The safety of the public is at stake. Where are the doctors, police and social workers, when they are most needed?
i don't understand
[info]eriall01 wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 09:51 am (UTC)
I see the situation as this, people do NOT want a conservative government, they reject everything that Thatcher stood for and the party that gave the UK that nightmare. David Cameron, though not an 'evil' person, has not risen above any other bottom feeding politician willing to say anything to win a popularity contest. But what is the alternative, labour, as you have stated so well has a leader that has no credibility, their last leader was generally good until Iraq (which is a BIG dissaster), the party just doesn't seem to care any more (and they definitely do not have any claim to a moral highground). So you would think the lib dems would be going through the roof in popularity; they are the only party with ideas, they are the only party that is not wallowing in the muck (I don't believe they are perfectly clean, just to say they are not completly covered in it...in part this is because they are not in power.), they seem to have smart competent people, etc. So, why aren't they more popular? I don't know the answer to this. and I don't understand it at all. I just wish they would figure it out and take a leadership position. Or that anyone else would rise up out of the muck to lead this country. The UK public, I feel, is as I am so sick and tired of the labour/conservative tit for tat, lies and cover-ups, spin doctoring, and keystone cop antics that they would consider anyone else but one of them if it were available. if things keep going the way they are, the next election will be horrible, the apathy will be higher than it has ever been, the conservatives will probably win, and the country will simply not care.
Re: i don't understand - IRAQ - clearly!
[info]blairsupporter wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 10:50 am (UTC)
Iraq was and is a major victory and will be seen as such in time. Once the unbalanced Left-dominated British press understand the issues and explain them in an unbiased way.

As our troops prepare to leave Basra ask THEM and the locals what they think.

You won't find the same story as you do in the British feral press.

The Lib-Dems? Wrong about Iraq. And that, to me, counts them out of ANY decision of any importance.

The next election campaign is not going to be pretty. And the next goverenment will have to have a leader of stature. I see no-one in parliament today who fits that decription. No vision, no real answers, no communication skills.

I'm probably voting Apathy Party next time, unless -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ymczrvl1o

?Come, promptly, there is a job here?.
[info]famulla wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 10:07 am (UTC)
As British troops pull out of Basra, a stabbing and car bombing show that stability is still a long way away
Basra by numbers
£744m UK spend on reconstruction in Iraq
11 Murders in Basra in January this year. In all of 2007 there were 848
17% Unemployment rate in the city
I had the opportunity to listen Mr. Bow in Iraq talking of the British soldiers coming back to UK and that there is a great opportunity in Iraq for the British firms as one has already received a contract worth million pounds. This is what I love. On one hand we want to praise the dead soldiers, Iraq, then we immediately tell others, ?Come, promptly, there is a job here?.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
Number 10's Petition of Resignation for Mr Brown
[info]jamesbrett12 wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 10:42 am (UTC)
Same old crap
[info]kuma2000 wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 10:49 am (UTC)
The only way of limiting the damage that this system of "government" does is going from one extreme for another... Has anyone ever thought of real democracy as an alternative to a bunch of bloated toffs mocking in each other in preposterous public school accents as the way the country should be ran?
Re: Same old crap
[info]blairsupporter wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 12:37 pm (UTC)
To Same old crap/kuma2000 -

Erm ... you meant - "the way the country should be 'RUN'"?

Sorry to be pedantic - but it does help if we can use English properly, toff or not.
Re: Same old crap - [info]kuma2000 - Friday, 1 May 2009 at 03:25 pm (UTC) Expand
FIDDLING WHILST ROME BURNS
[info]harmonyfuture wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 11:14 am (UTC)
To allow or even force Brown to resign may be a mistake for many reasons.
1. He would be replaced by whom? I'm afraid there is no suitable candidates from the declared pretenders to the throne (I shudder at the thought).
2. Brown and indeed many of our so called politicians need to be thrown out of Westminster in such a way as they are left in no doubt that the electorate will no longer tolerate their behaviour.
3. We need reforms to our Democracy not twiddling with the status quo.
4. Such a move may undermine investment confidence.

In my opinion we have a 2CV engine in a Ferrari body with tractor wheels and changing the steering wheel will make bugger all difference.

Starting now we push for a No Confidence Vote. The constitutional mechanisms exist to make this a reality and sufficient pressure from the electorate would make it difficult to ignore.

We install an interim Emergency National Government with a Recovery Cabinet, those with the necessary skill, experience and integrity to get us on the right track.

One remit of this Cabinet would be to bring about Electoral Reform (The only thing we should be voting on, not wasting time with another pointless Election) so that when recovery is established we can go to the polls and bring back a real Government.

We empower this Cabinet to instigate a peoples elected commission to investigate the causes and irregularities of this crisis. This could flush out the bad elements in the system and more importantly, give us the necessary information to regulate against it happening again.

Please start now with http://www.gopetition.co.uk/online/25648.html


Re?come promptly, there;s a job here
[info]alanski wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 11:14 am (UTC)
I can't dispute your figures on UK money spent in Iraq but GBP748 mil seems a tad low. I would just remind that, having lived and worked in Iraq for three years during Saddams time, our little company did regular biz sales of Brit made construction equipments of 15 million a throw. But then of course Saddam was in vogue, so much so that the generous Thatcher government handed over around 400 million a year in the Iraq/ British protocol to keep the man sweet. All her main front benchers were required to, and did, turn up at regular intervals to kiss his ass. As I watched the Basrah memorial service today it struck me just how sad aqnd unnecessary this Blair adventure was both in the loss of good service men and womens lives and untold death and mayhem for the Iraqis. That you cannot put a price on but it's a disaster that Nu Labour will carry for ever.
in 12 years we'll voting for these again
[info]sparky2107 wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 11:18 am (UTC)
does it matter who's in? The school boy energy that flies across the divide in the house of commons indicates a shared outlook. I say 'these' because in 12 years time Newest bright shiny Labour (copyright) will again be seen as saviors/best option blah blah etc etc and around we go once more.
Should we be surprised......
[info]sirjasper wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 11:27 am (UTC)
I don't think his premiership has ever really 'taken off'.
Long before he inherited the title, various sources described him as;
"Psychologically flawed"
"Politician with the charisma of a slug"
"A dour Scot"
"An uncanny housekeeper"
Not exactly the kind of labels one attaches too potentially successful political leaders.
He has tried to compensate during the global economic downturn, by acting in the manner of a savior which has not worked to his advantage.
So it would seem you've got it in one John.
It's all for him. but the shouting will go on for some time yet!

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Columnist Comments

andrew_grice

Andrew Grice: Enough of the philosophy, Mr Cameron.

Think-tanks play an important role in politics. But they have their limits.

christina_patterson

Christina Patterson: Very nice - but forgiveness is overrated

Sometimes, as Lydon sang, in his post Sex Pistols band, 'anger is an energy.'

mary_dejevsky

Mary Dejevsky: Why not call Blair now and wrap it up?

The enquiry already seems like a sideline as the queues dwindle.


Loading...


Most popular in Opinion