The Kintyre Forum

Some Labour MPs are now saying that Gordon Brown does not have the right qualities to be Prime Minister.

Is this really the case, or is he just carrying the can for things that would have happened anyway if Blair had stayed on in Downing Street?

Personally, I never saw him as having the qualities of a Prime Minister. Frankly, a lot of people I know down here say they don't want to be governed by a Scot ( ) but I think he's as Scottish as a morris dance myself. Now he's lost the support of his party, I can't see how he can continue. Perhaps they'll learn a lesson this time: no leader should be appointed without a contest.

Wendy Alexander's appointment was also uncontested.

EMDEE wrote:Wendy Alexander's appointment was also uncontested.

I rest my case then

Govangirl wrote:.... no leader should be appointed without a contest.

I agree. What about a cream cracker eating contest where the winner is the person who can eat the most in 5 minutes and then whistle the national anthem. Unless anyone else has a better idea for a contest?

Malky

I also agree Govangirl that there should always be a leadership contest, but I don't think Brown's tenure is any sort of lesson to the Labour Party. Was it not the case that he was the overwhelming favourite for the job and would have walked any contest last summer anyway?

Being elected or simply assumed in to the position as he was, would have had no bearing on how things were to pan out in his first year in charge.

I am in no way a Labour sympathiser but I feel he has been really hard done be in the press - it could be as you touched on that he is 'Scottish'

Take the '10% tax fiasco', which in my opinion simply became a political weapon against him. Headlines were all about how he had doubled the income tax payable be a low earner. That is just playing with words and anyone who really understands what he did knows that.

It was blown out of all proportion for political gain be the opposition, and I have to be fair and say SNP included. In reality, anyone who was affected is probably more than 'made good' by increased tax credits.

So, whilst, I am delighted with the impact the unpopular Labour Govenrment is having on politics up here I just feel much of the sentiment against Brown is being stoked be certain parts of the media.

Personally the leadership of the labour party is a back burner cause for concern. I think it would be fare to say, the party was formed to represent the working class - and fight for social justice. How effective it has been in achieving this goal - is the matter of true concern.
Earlier reforms certainly improved living conditions - NHS - the nationalising of certain industries - council housing - corporations - water works - parks schools libraries clinics - life expectancy - all went to improve our lot.
So what happened?
Apart from it being swamped by the (so called progressive middle classes) How many MP'S in the labour party come from a poor background ?. Being Middle class shouldn't be in any way a bar to joining a political party - however they have become the tail that wags the dog.
How suspicious would it appear - if the ANC South African Government became predominately white boar. ( who won the war )
It is a little more difficult to determine class than race - particularly as brown or pink skin are not determining factors.
They the party - have become more and more detached from the original beginnings. It could be argued that the original founders of the party where middle class - and therefore doomed by the limited success of reforms - within a capitalist society.
They became industrial capitalists - evidence of their abject failure clearly seen in the recent Glasgow East election.
If democracy truly means common rule - then their is little in the way of ( labour party democracy ) for the poor.
I would rather have 50 randomly picked inhabitants of Glasgow East - than one person - who when all is said and done advocates and practices - political aristocracy - vote for me I'm the best type of guy. That was never my idea of democracy.

Hume wrote:I also agree Govangirl that there should always be a leadership contest, but I don't think Brown's tenure is any sort of lesson to the Labour Party.

Actually, and sadly, I don't think ANYTHING now is a lesson to the Labour Party.

I agree with all the comments and think Brown could never had succeeded after Blair. I know I've said much on the topic of Thatcher but Blair has betrayed this country - actually, I feel he has betrayed me personally. Time and time again, he showed us that democracy could go hang and his sickening recourse to Christian faith and beliefs to justify his actions was a sham.

Last year there was an article in the Guardian (but don't know who wrote it) and I kept the last paragraph of it as I thought it was great:

'And every day that passses makes recovery harder. ''When somebody is this accident-prone it is no accident,'' one wit observes. Brown is a Shakespearian tragedy in the making, says one MP: Othello's jealousy, Hamlet's indecision, the futile rage of Lear and Brutus's weakness for bad advice. 'But at least we've got rid of the Macbeths.''

Govangirl wrote:I agree with all the comments and think Brown could never had succeeded after Blair. I know I've said much on the topic of Thatcher but Blair has betrayed this country - actually, I feel he has betrayed me personally. Time and time again, he showed us that democracy could go hang and his sickening recourse to Christian faith and beliefs to justify his actions was a sham.

If as you say that Brown could never succeed after Blair - As Blair betrayed his country and you.This is the part I don't understand girl. Yes I can see that a decent person like yourself - would be offended with Blair, as I was. However if he was a complete loser - the question begs - why couldn't Brown succeed him?. Surely it wouldn't take much - to better the hypocritical faced Blair. Then again Gordon's lack of charisma - warmth - his love affair with prudence - reminds me of the quote like being savaged by a dead sheep - nothing there - a put you to sleep quickly type figure. Should politics be guided by personalities no - however in reality they are.

I know where you're coming from Ionns but what I meant was that Brown took over against a background of massive disillusion with New Labour. There were lots of folk who once enthused over Tony Blair and of all the policies he had, the one on that war was his lasting legacy. Many cannot forgive that. So two things: 1. The next leader had to be a very charismatic one and 2. we can't forget that although Brown’s heart may not be inscribed with 'Iraq' as it is on Blair’s, he was the one who financed the bombing and the killing.
Anyway, that's just the beginning of why Brown was always going to end up in this turmoil.

How different things could have been if John Smith had survived. Blair was no succesor to John Smith. Another great loss to the Labour Party through his early demise was Robin Cook.

I am inclined to agree with Hume on this one. I do not feel Gordon Brown is getting a fair press. I doubt if Labour would be any better off under any other Leader in the current circumstances. Now that the media have turned against him then I think Gordon Brown will find it very difficult to turn public opinion back in his favour.

I have no doubt that he is generally a fair, decent, honest and well intentioned man. His efforts at tackling World Poverty are, I believe, genuine. As Chancellor he brought in a number of decent measures, including Gift Aid to help Charities. However, he lost much credibility in my eyes when he continued to sit in the Cabinet when Iraq was invaded. If he did not believe it was the right thing to do then he should have gone with Robin Cook. It struck me then that he was more interested in High Office than his own convictions.

Govangirl wrote:Time and time again, he showed us that democracy could go hang and his sickening recourse to Christian faith and beliefs to justify his actions was a sham.

Isn't Blair the only Prime Minister of recent times who has publicly expressed so much religious faith and said that God has a hand in his decisions? It is not so uncommon among American presidents, they seem to think it gives them more credibility. It is odd how we regard leaders of Moslem countries as somewhat sinister when they invoke religion as a basis for their politics, but Christianity or Judaism is acceptable. Much of Blair's politics and lifestyle breaks the ten commandments, and to go and visit the Pope when he left office to convert to Roman Catholicism is sheer hypocrisy, probably instigated by that shrinking violet Cherie. How many people who convert to Catholicism need to visit the Pope?

This was nothing but a cynical publicity stunt, and the Pope should have told him to go and see his parish priest like everybody else would. Blair has no more standing in the church than anyone else.

The fact that Gordon Brown was brought up in a manse would probably make him less likely to invoke religion as a justification for policies.

Exactly Emdee, I can always rely on you to articulate what I was trying to express! There's no doubt that Brown is a man with faith who doesn't have to shout from the rooftops about it.

I think what Ionns said earlier is true - that although politics should not be guided by personalities, it invariably is.
Which leads me to surmise that if you and I were running for office, I would, with my gob and loud personality, probably end up being PM and you, the eloquent, dignified, intelligent one would have to spend years standing in my shadows whilst I ruined the country!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the labour party had any decent policies they would not be in the shit.Where are the men of vision?Not that tosser balls,or milliband et al.
The country is screwed thanks to a lack of thinking and the last tory goverment.All people are worried about is the fact their house is losing value.
Wee need to wake up and start afresh,with sensible social policies,immigration,etc etc.
Get rid of nutty health and saftey crap,the human rights nonsense etc etc.
Oh shit we cant produce a party that can do anything.