Gordon Brown: No Election

[Paj!]

I didn't think he would have a snap election anyway. Why would you? It was a good "push" though for the other parties who were scared of the possibility.

 

I want to see what he's like as PM anyway.

[rokhed00]

If that is the case I apologise. Im just too used to ya on my back (No Homo)

 

Don't worry about it, at least you were man enough to apologize, that scores you a point in my book.

[Blackfox]

Which policies in particular do you like from Labour then?

 

 

It really has to be Conservative for me. I watched part of Cameron's speech at the Conference and I agreed with almost everything he said. The thing about schools was great, giving headteachers the power to remove disruptive pupils from classes and the school if need be. Streamlining classes.

Raising the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million.

Giving local governments more freedom.

 

The Tories do have some excellent policies, however - the NHS isn't safe with the Tories, nor are the benefits tat people get in this country, Its all very well and good for the more affluent forumites, but for the working class - life would be harder.

 

The Tories fucked up well and good this country in the 80s - wouldn't want that again. Never trust them!

[McPhee]

I wonder what the torries would have said if Tony Blair called an election 5 months after David Cameron took over the party? Brown needs some time to settle in, it's no surprise there's no election yet

[Zechs Merquise]

I wonder what the torries would have said if Tony Blair called an election 5 months after David Cameron took over the party? Brown needs some time to settle in, it's no surprise there's no election yet

 

eh??? It was Brown who wanted the election when he was ahead by a massive majority in the polls. Since the Tories have gone ahead after their conference (not an odd thing as they've just had a massive publicity boost and all their policies and speeches have been all over the TV for a week) he changed his mind as he was worried.

 

It's Brown who decides on the Election date, it is HIS SOLE RIGHT, no one else can call one, only the Prime Minister. The fact is, he was gearing up to shaft all the other parties with a snap General Election, then the opinion polls changed and he bottled it.

[Wesley]

I would of been annoyed if an election was held this year. Simply because the main fact for the election wouldn't of been the true purpose of why an election should be held but more, "Which new leader is the best?". The election would not of been about party policy and direction but about the leader. And although it's viewed as voting for a Prime Minister, it's not; it's about voting for your local member of government and therefore the majority of the Commons.

 

I like the PM more because he didn't get drawn into a school-boy type dare by the Torries.

[rokhed00]

I like the PM more because he didn't get drawn into a school-boy type dare by the Torries.

 

I thought it was Brown doing the daring, but chickened out.

[Wesley]

Well it's all to impression at the end of the day. I didn't personally get the impression the PM was doing the daring. I know that members of the Labour party were, but I didn't think as much the PM himself.

[khilafah]

not too bothered about this as I do not vote. Never have and never will!

[Charlie]

I can't stand it when people do not vote. You should be proud to live in a country where we get a choice of who runs it and should show it by voting.

[Indigo]

Well it's all to impression at the end of the day. I didn't personally get the impression the PM was doing the daring. I know that members of the Labour party were, but I didn't think as much the PM himself.

Brown instructed his aides to hype up talk of an election - it wasn't mere speculation on the media's part, they were being fed positive signs by No. 10. All responsibility therefore lies with him, as he himself has conceded. He could have halted all the talk weeks ago, but he chose to stir it up further by moving forward the Commons statement on Iraq and the Pre-Budget report to this week (a move that clearly suggested an impending election announcement). Election advertisements were planned, new staff recruited, and it all looked set to go. And then Labour's lead was cut from 11% to zero after a positive Conservative conference, and he bottled it. There is no question about it - he rallied his troops up the hill, only to come running straight back down.

 

The funny thing is that in the aftermath of all this, Brown is trying to claim that the turn in the opinion polls wasn't what swayed him, which is clearly an insult to the intelligence of the British public.

 

This whole episode has merely exposed the true side of Brown's character, with his huge misjudgement painting the picture of an incompetent PM. What we have seen is that beneath all the bravado and posturing as a 'strong' PM there is a cowardly man, lacking the judgement to lead.

 

He cannot now even claim to have Britain's interests at heart, after going all the way to Iraq to announce the "withdrawal" of 1000 British troops, despite the fact it had already been announced long before that 500 of them were coming home, and another 270 or so of this 1000 were in fact already back on home soil. If the man has no qualms with trying to manipulate the armed forces for his political advantage, what claim can he make to have our national interests at heart?

 

I think after 10 years of Labour government, what we witness is a party that has ran out of steam (much like the Conservatives from 1992-97). The government lacks their own vision and solutions, as seen by today's announcement that they plan to steal the Conservative's inheritance tax plans (albeit in a watered down form). They are clinging on, trying to hold onto power merely for power's sake.

 

The sooner we get some change, the better.

[Mikey]

I can't stand it when people do not vote. You should be proud to live in a country where we get a choice of who runs it and should show it by voting.

 

 

Why should I vote as a man? What are the candidates doing to help male domestic violence victims? Why should I vote when all the candidates are interested in is in pandering to minorities and women? Why should I vote when none of the candidates are proposing to improve things for men? Why should I vote when no one cares when a man has his kids taken away from him just because some bitch has cried abuse? They offer nothing to me, so fuck them.

 

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/2007/10/ask_dr_helen_5.php

 

This article is about what it's like in the US, but a lot of what happens there, also happens here. Until politicians change that, then they will not get my vote. I'm not only interested in only helping men, but I'm sick to death of the likes us being ignored.

 

I've never voted, and never will unless things are changed.

[Ant-Shimmin]

Mikey I could be way off but are you in an Organisation like Fathers for Justice?

[Mikey]

No, because from what I understand about them, I don't like their tactics. I do believe men get their kids taken from them unfairly though.

[Wesley]

How can you expect things to change when you don't vote. And why do you have the right to demand things to change when you don't even participate in it.

[Mikey]

Voting would send the wrong message. If I vote, why should they change? If something stinks, like a game, you wouldn't buy it first, then complain when they already have your money would you?

[Wesley]

But you can't change a computer game. Policy and government can change; that;s how progress had been made in the past.

[Mikey]

But you change future products the game developer makers by not supporting crap games. My main point is, if they already know they have your vote, why will they do anything for you?

[KKOB]

I'm all for gordon brown for PM at this point. I can't wait to look at the labor, conservative and lib dem manifesto. Should be good to see what they have in store and what the battle lines will be.

 

I loathe conservatives, and i detest david cameron. I find him slimy, sly, and a god damn toff nosed fucktard. However, if the conservatives have a fantastic manifesto, and labors sucks, i'd have to vote con. but we shall see . . .

[Monopolyman]

I can't stand it when people do not vote. You should be proud to live in a country where we get a choice of who runs it and should show it by voting.

 

I don't know about this. I've been thinking about this philosophy for a while.

 

I used to agree with it like most other people, but thinking about it, nobody would win from forcing/guilting people who have no political interests what-so-ever to vote. Although I agree that if you don't vote, but bitch and moan about how this country is run, you're a hypocrite, but for the people who don't really give a toss about voting, guilting them into it is forcing them to do something they don't want to do, and also they just vote for just anyone on the ballot sheet, distorting the ballot, which is prehaps unfair on those who genuinely do care about politics. Not to say I'm 100% on this, but it's still worth thinking about for me.

 

 

Anyway, to make sure this doesn't go off topic, I agree with the majority (I think). Brown probably should have held the election, mainly because right now, depite what the opinion polls say, Labour would most likely win the General Election. But having said that, I'd like to see a bit more Brown as PM to make up my mind.

[Wesley]

The problem is that when election time rolls around it's usually the case of sitting PM and the opposition. You base your opinions on the oppositions policy and your opinion on the PM on his performance. Has the PM even had enough time for your opinions to be formed on him?