David Cameron WINS!
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/05/11/uk.cameron.conservative/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1
Hurrah! Congrats to Mr Cameron and his party.
To quote Madam Margaret Thatcher "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money"
God Save the Queen!
It's fine... This is the first coalition government in a very long time so I don't expect anyone outside of the UK to really notice.
The Conservative party does have the majority of the seats by a far amount... Just not quite enough, One of the many reasons our country needs electoral reform (being that Gordon Brown's Labour Party came second but Gordon remained Prime Minister).
Having Clegg as deputy PM isn't what is going to stagger decision making, it's a lot wider than that. You have 2 parties on the same bench... with a mixed cabinet.
I personally think it's good that we have a coalition government, we're in a state of ecenomic emercency, reports indicate that the UK may hve the the largest defecit in th EU soon. A coalition government may create a time of bipartisan politics, at least between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives which our country would benefit from.
I don't know why people are so hard up on Gordon, he was a brilliant Chancellor and Labour's policies on the economy were better than that of the Torries IMO. He may have not been the most personable man but I don't think he was half as bad as the Tory press and public like to make out.
Because whilst he was skilled technically he was godawful as a leader- bullying, aggressive, totally unable to provide unity or stability (he couldn't even sack his own chancellor) and totally lacking in any charisma on the international stage.
If he had topped out his career as chancellor, he would have had a much better image. But he should never have been the leader of a major nation.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Because whilst he was skilled technically he was godawful as a leader- bullying, aggressive, totally unable to provide unity or stability (he couldn't even sack his own chancellor) and totally lacking in any charisma on the international stage.If he had topped out his career as chancellor, he would have had a much better image. But he should never have been the leader of a major nation.
I don't know about the international stage. It seemed at a European summit alot of EU leaders gave him props. The only reason why he lost really wa because he wasn't as slick as Tony Blair. We don't know about the extent of bullying thats just hearsay. Im not sure about him being a god awful leader he did well just to get this far.
I think if you dismiss the idea of Brown as a bully as just hearsay you are wilfully blinding yourself.
He was a joke, internationally. Again, he might have had some good technical ideas to deal with financial issues but his presence on that stage was close to zero- just look at the EU President debacle.
And there is value in being slick, as a leader. But even if Brown had had that, he would still have lost because his record was so poor. He'd lost control- his own party was falling apart and confidence in Labour to actually get things sorted was close to zero.
He never won an election. He never provided any amount of inspiration. He was a small man internationally. He could not control the media, parliament, his party or even his cabinet. By any definition of what a leader needs, he failed.
Most of the problems you mentioned weren't his fault... It was a slander campaign from some of the back benchers who looked to perform a coupe. When it comes down to it he couldn't win. He was attacked straight from the start as "the guy we never voted for" by the press and media... the fact that he was unpopular made people within his ranks hate him.... this added more fuel to the media fire. He was dealt a duff set of cards.
On the charisma front he was lacking, no one denys that but it shouldn't be about that. We do not have the US presidential system (yet), To say that he didn't have any impact on the internation stage isn't true either.. The G20 meeting that happened in London last year was much more of a success then most thought it would be.
For the record I'm not a Labour supporter, I'm a floating voter who voted for the Lib Dems last week.... I just think that people are too quick to attack Brown. He was by no means perfect.... or even good, but he wasn't bad.
Oh, of course it was his fault! Blimey, trying to absolve someone so clearly not suited for the role of leader is very much just a matter of covering your eyes and ears. The only thing that was not his fault was the economic crisis (and even then, some blame can be attached to him being part of the creation of the system that made it happen, though there is little reason to think other chancellors would have done differently).
A man like Blair, in contrast, was very good at commanding the loyalty of his party even if not liked, and showed great intelligence in handelling the media. It took ten years, three victorious elections and a major war before the gloss wore off him, and history will still treat him well. Brown- less so.
For the G20 thing- refer to what I said above. He might have good ideas. That doesn't change that he was a very poor international statesman and we suffered for it.
Charisma is actually very important in the leader of a nation. VERY important. It is a huge mistake to dismiss it. He was much better suited in one of the offices of state- Home Office, Foreign Office or the Treasury. Hence his best days will always have been at the treasury. He should never have been leader- he was not cut out for it. And becoming so proved a disaster.
Why people cannot recognise that a person who cannot control his party or cabinet is a godawful leader is beyond me. He couldn't sack his own Chancellor! That's a man who has totally lost any authority or control. Hopeless! All he could do was cling to power like a limpet regardless of the damage he caused to his party and the nation- even after he lost the darn election, he tried to hold on to deal to continue in power.
Seriously, Brown failed almost every test in this regard. History will judge him as a nobody as PM- ineffectual, unpopular, unelected, and a failure.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I think if you dismiss the idea of Brown as a bully as just hearsay you are wilfully blinding yourself.
No what im saying is it may actually be true but just because some people say it doesn't make it true. Are you a member of the labour party? Were you actually there? Don't politicians lie about other politicians?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
He was a joke, internationally. Again, he might have had some good technical ideas to deal with financial issues but his presence on that stage was close to zero- just look at the EU President debacle.And there is value in being slick, as a leader. But even if Brown had had that, he would still have lost because his record was so poor. He'd lost control- his own party was falling apart and confidence in Labour to actually get things sorted was close to zero.
He never won an election. He never provided any amount of inspiration. He was a small man internationally. He could not control the media, parliament, his party or even his cabinet. By any definition of what a leader needs, he failed.
Why was he joke internationally. I hear you saying that but what proof do you have?
Also look where the news is coming from... Our Newspapers are mostly very blue. Why do you think that Cameron won every debate and that Clegg was such a horrible man over the last few weeks.
The bullying stories are unfounde... It was a slader campaign from within the party. If you believe them then you're really not worth listening to on this matter. I think the stories would have lasted more than a week or so if they were true, the Tory party would have milked them to no end.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, wilfully blinding yourself.
Im sorry but thats pathetic. When somebody asks you for proof you don't say something like that. What you do is actually respond to the point the person has actually made and you come back with a coherent argument instead of just fobing the person off. It gives the impression you can't argue that case.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
And... geez. Just read around the news over the last three years.
You might be right but it sound like exuses. You're supposed to be objective.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Oh, of course it was his fault! Blimey, trying to absolve someone so clearly not suited for the role of leader is very much just a matter of covering your eyes and ears. The only thing that was not his fault was the economic crisis (and even then, some blame can be attached to him being part of the creation of the system that made it happen, though there is little reason to think other chancellors would have done differently).A man like Blair, in contrast, was very good at commanding the loyalty of his party even if not liked, and showed great intelligence in handelling the media. It took ten years, three victorious elections and a major war before the gloss wore off him, and history will still treat him well. Brown- less so.
What a minute. I remember Blair having problems with his party as well.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
For the G20 thing- refer to what I said above. He might have good ideas. That doesn't change that he was a very poor international statesman and we suffered for it.Charisma is actually very important in the leader of a nation. VERY important. It is a huge mistake to dismiss it. He was much better suited in one of the offices of state- Home Office, Foreign Office or the Treasury. Hence his best days will always have been at the treasury. He should never have been leader- he was not cut out for it. And becoming so proved a disaster.
Why people cannot recognise that a person who cannot control his party or cabinet is a godawful leader is beyond me. He couldn't sack his own Chancellor! That's a man who has totally lost any authority or control. Hopeless! All he could do was cling to power like a limpet regardless of the damage he caused to his party and the nation- even after he lost the darn election, he tried to hold on to deal to continue in power.
Seriously, Brown failed almost every test in this regard. History will judge him as a nobody as PM- ineffectual, unpopular, unelected, and a failure.
Yes Charisma is important but it could be argued that people are just shallow. So far I haven't seen any proof he was weak internationally.
Originally posted by §P0oONYThe bullying stories are unfounde... It was a slader campaign from within the party. If you believe them then you're really not worth listening to on this matter. I think the stories would have lasted more than a week or so if they were true, the Tory party would have milked them to no end.
Oh no your just willfully blinding yourself. That pretty much clinches the argument.
Just mirroring what I say is pretty feeble. If you want to put up the "we cannot prove it" argument then go ahead. But you are still wrong, and you will continue to be wrong as it all comes out in the years to come in memoirs, biographies, released papers etc. You honestly are just fooling yourself and no amount of indignation from you will change that. I feel kind of sorry for you in a way. It's true though- I cannot be bothered to argue with someone like yourself. I don't need to, though. What I say is true, and my confidence in that is very high. No arguing will change that and I don't care if you don't agree.
The rest of your post is just not looking at mine. Please do the courtesy of reading my posts properly. I mentioned how Blair still held authority despite issues- and how it took so long after so much success before any of this gave him trouble. Brown ran into trouble almost immediately.
This would be the same press that was so amazingly behind Blair, yes? The media argument is a poor one, Brown was crappy at handling the media (and, indeed, at handling anyone), that is why it didn't like him. And the bullying stories came from many different sources. You're close to saying that because it was in the media it cannot be true. Dearie me.
Some very blinkered views here. Some people need more realism. And there are many, MANY things in politics that you cannot literally prove but nonetheless that reasonable people know are true- and they are walways right., Case in point, all the talk of the relationship between Brown and Blair whilst Blair was in power. I am sure you would have denied all that too, even when it was so clear it was the way it was. Afterwards, of course, came indeed, the memories and biographies laying it all out. Common sense is a useful thing.
Bottom line remains- he was a crap leader and his performance shows that. You are kinda stuck with those facts, and casting around for some conspiracy to blame for it all is poor. It was all his own fault, and it would not have happened with a better leader.
WHat I'm saying is "Just because it's in the media it doesn't have to be true."
Read back and look at the sources, it may have been printed in a lot of places (who would ignore the story?!?) but sources-wise there are few and none are reliable.
Also, please don't call my view blinkered just because I don't agree with you... This is what politics is all about. That's why we don't all vote for the same party.