[Closed] Time for Gordon Brown to go

He is isn't he?

Going i mean.

He's still hanging on - no sign of him leaving No 10 yet, even though Clegg has now said that the Tories should be trying to form the government. I suspect the SAS will have to go in and smoke him out eventually.

We'll see.

Where there is discord, may we bring harmony.... 😈

Clegg has now said that the Tories should be trying to form the government.

Is that to strengthen his hand if Broon gives him a call?

He'll resign later this morning, I reckon

Whether or not he'll be gone for good rather depends on Clegg finding common ground with the Tories & I'm not sure that's possible

He'll resign later this morning, I reckon

Not convinced that he'll have got the message but I suspect there'll be a Downfall moment going on in No 10 right now.

Will he be upset that he's now got to ride at the back listening to Hora's nonsense? 😀

I reckon (11:45) that it's more likely for Brown to go, but a Lib-Lab pact will be formed with another PM.
The LibDems need proportional representation, and the Tories would not give it to them as it would be in their interest to delay such a bill, then hold another election in 6 months

Will he be upset that he's now got to ride at the back listening to Hora's nonsense?

Class!

but a Lib-Lab pact will be formed with another PM.

Not sure they'll want a leadership contest right now - September maybe

Not convinced that Labour will really go for PR either whatever they've said - after all, it means the permanent end of overall control for them as well as for the Tories and they have more to lose given their relative proportion of the vote.

Whilst I generally agree that he shouldn't be PM in the next parliament, under our electoral system it actually falls first to him as the current Prime Minister to try and form a government and if he cannot only then would David Cameron be invited to try and form one.

Would Clegg lose all credibility by going for a Lib-Lab pact? He's been spouting out all through the election he'll support the party with the most votes/seats.

But I imagine Brown will be required to fall on his sword to keep the Labs in power in a coalition. Regardless of if he wants to or not. I can just see him as they drag him our of No. 10 in a straightjacket "No, no, I'm the one who can lead the country out of all its' problems. Me I tell you, Meeeeeeeeeeeeeee"

FPP gives Labour too many seats for their popularity, and under scores Conservative and LibDem. So why do Labour vaguely support it and are Conservatives so strongly against it?

FPP gives Labour too many seats for their popularity, and under scores Conservative and LibDem. So why do Labour vaguely support it and are Conservatives so strongly against it?

Presume you've made a typing error....

conservatives support FPP, because theres less chance of coalition/hung governement and more chance of them in power
Lib Dem support PR as it gives them loads more seats than FPP
Think labour want alternative vote- where i think you rank the parties in what order you support. dunno how they work out the votes from that one though. Also probably trying to side more with the lib dems in hope of forming a lib/lab governement

Essentially they all just choose whatevers more likely to get them in power.

I suspect Labour 'support' PR to snuggle up to the Lib Dems, knowing a combined Lib-Lab coalition is always going to beat the Cons. Hence Cons opposing it.

stv or av is much better than straight PR as it should reduce the number of fringe parties

will be worse for the tories than labour as your average lib voter is more likely to put lab as his 2nd than tory

Whilst I generally agree that he shouldn't be PM in the next parliament, under our electoral system it actually falls first to him as the current Prime Minister to try and form a government and if he cannot only then would David Cameron be invited to try and form one.

yes
But Clegg won't talk to Lab until he's had the chance to talk to the Cons & without the Libs, Brown cannot even start to form a government

so that sort of reverses things a bit

GB will be rmembered as the chancellor who steered us through the longets period of continual growth

cameron will be remebered as the guy that never won

GB will be remembered for not saving for a rainy day when all was shining around him, selling gold at third of current price etc. His legacy is not over yet and he may well be remembered for leaving the UK with massive debt, fault or no fault (to be fair continual growth wasn't down to him either). That and nicking stuff out of my pension without asking.

GB will be rmembered as the chancellor who [s]steered us[/s] just happened to be in charge through the longets period of continual growth

[img] [/img]

Gordon handing the key's back over.

GB will be remembered as the man who:

[b]never won an election ![/b]

Sold our Gold
bought Euros
borrowed too much
spent it all
Employed over 10% UK workforce
Would, then wouldn't allow us a referrendum
and on
and on

He hasn't just been voted out for doing a [i][b]good[/b] job[/i]

CC.

EDIT: BreathEasy & MM. Spot on !

Here Here,
Waves white paper

mm interesting one the constitution gives him first dibs but Labour clearly lost the election. That said the tories did not quite win it- close but did not cross the finish line. Lib dems wil not do a deal without PR full stop...not sure what they will sacrifice for PR but that is their sole/only/first priority. T think a lab/lib oalition is their only chance of that as I am sure Plaid and SNP and he green MP will support that. Not a done deal yetor dave . I expect PR by end of year and /or a new election. Think Cameron should resign and join the English cricket team ..they will appreciate his ability to steal defeat from the jaws of victory. Brown will go BUT only if Lib will do a deal he will fall on his sword for the party/to avoid a tory government.
Odd results cannot believe the tories could not beat this shower and in this economic climate ....best chance for them to rule for a generation I would be tempted to let them take charge f@ck up everything and make themselves unelectable for another generation. Cant see whoever is nominally in power winning next election as too many unpopular decisions to be made.

Whereas Cameron is the man who to use a football analogy, failed to score in front of an open goal, and now is hoping for a rebound to go in of everyone's favourites party the DUP. He has the support of 36.2% of the electorate, while a lib-lab coalition has 52.0% (on current figures).

Is the problem the Tories or Dave? What leader would result in those here that have been so strongly opposed to the Tories being more supportive? Or was the damage done in the 80s so bad that you could never vote for them?

Have the Tories started to blame each other yet?

GB will be rmembered as the chancellor who steered us through the longets period of continual growth

Ha !. Yeah, like the public didn't have anything to do with it.

Well GB owned the goal, [b]was[/b] the goal keeper and still failed.

Cons have won over 90 seats

Labour has lost nearly that. Pity there weren't a few more sensible people voting pragmatically.

Markets are likely to punish us for this and we've only ourselves to blame.

Those three put themselves up there for us to choose who gets into No10, and we ****ed that up.

CC.

a lib-lab coalition has 52.0%

A rather spurious figure. I don't recall any lib-lab coalition candidates on my polling form. Just because labour got 29% and liberals 23% doesn't mean that a lib-lab coalition got 52%. You might as well say that 59% supported a conservative-liberal coalition or 65% supported a conservative-labour coalition or 88% supported a conservative-labour-liberal coalition.

[i]Or was the damage done in the 80s so bad that you could never vote for them[/i]

Yeah, and what happened then. Mrs T had to start clearing up the mess left by the previous Gov. Although a lot here choose not to acknowledge this.

Not defending what the Cons did then, but they had to do something, didn't they ?. And of course, you can not always tell if you did something right or wrong, until you have the benefit of hindsight.

Like everything Labour has done in 13 years, was right....... 🙄

Thing is we needed a clean break from what has been going on, and the public have missed a chance to do this.

What a mess !.

CC.

Doom mongers again...just like the forum covered in Lib Dems and they won bugger all.

Its about Labour not Gordon Brown...we're not USA voting for a president.

Now we have to wait what Clegg will decide to back and in exchange for what.

I'm just wondering when it will be sorted.

Shame only 65% ppl got to vote.

I think Labour did well considering the media want them out and some of the muck ups they did.

Goodbye NHS if Dave gets in and unless you're on £150K min you will lose out.

I think everyone who voted libdem knew it could only govern in a coalition of some sort. Of course, a cons-lib coalition would have 59.1% (current figures). Either way the majority of the country get their choice of representation

Its about Labour not Gordon Brown...we're not USA voting for a president.

Pity no one told Gordon Brown that. I think the presidential style of politics is part responsible for their demise.

I see that Cameron has now picked up the poison chalice.

He won't get Clegg to drink though.

It'll be a minority Govt, not a coalition, then the Tories will crash and burn in a year or two (I hope).

>It'll be a minority Govt, not a coalition, then the Tories will crash and burn in a year or two (I hope).

Regardless of how any tory administration actually runs the country in that period ? You actually want the country to fail over that period just to get the tories out ? Isn't that the "old politics" your man kept banging on about ?

Whoever wins I want the country to do well so I and everyone else has a job!

And Britain to get back to being a strong economical power!

They need to put the differences aside and sort it out asap or markets could go either way.

I still think 65% turnover is rubbish.

egardless of how any tory administration actually runs the country in that period ? You actually want the country to fail over that period just to get the tories out ? Isn't that the "old politics" your man kept banging on about ?

Well it depends what you think the options are - realistically.

I happen to think that any party would have a tough time in Govt over the next couple of years, so the least worst option would be what I've outlined.

But if you like I could pretend that I think there is an option for the Tories to do really really well for the country and wish for that.

There, is that better?

They need to put the differences aside and sort it out asap or markets could go either way.

Markets shmarkets.

What do you actually mean - "markets could go either way" - psychobabble crap.

Oh my god! The Markets!!!!

SFW.

Doom mongers again...
Goodbye NHS if Dave gets in and unless you're on £150K min you will lose out.

Can no one else see the irony in those statements.

Convention dictates that in a hung parliament the sitting government should get the first chance to form a government.

convention? worth ignoring that then

iDave + 1
Whatever side of the fence you're on, it's plain for everyone to see that the tories won. No majority, but have still won fair and square. At least Clegg has a sense of fairness which many on here could learn from.

I'm sure when it's clear that the Cons will be able to command the confidence of parliament Brown will resign
He's already requested that senior civil servants help them with anything they need

Dave + 1
Whatever side of the fence you're on, it's plain for everyone to see that the tories won. No majority, but have still won fair and square. At least Clegg has a sense of fairness which many on here could learn from.

Tories haven't won anything yet. And honestly, would anyone want Cameron as PM when he couldn't even garner enough seats to get his party first past the post and beat Brown?

First past the post is supported by both the main parties, can't suddenly start bleating about it being unfair when your man doesn't get the required number of seats.

What a load of nonsense - the Tories haven't won anything - they got just over a third of votes cast from a 65% turnout - how does that give them constitutional, moral or any other kind of authority?

They got 2.1 MILLION more votes and 48 more seats.

when he couldn't even garner enough seats to get his party first past the post and beat Brown?

WTF? They've taken 90 odd seats off them. FFS are you suggesting that we let the most unpopular party rule? Labour and lib dems don't have a majority put together.
Edited for bad maths.

With the tories offering Clegg well, **** all, Labour still has everything to play for.

It will be funny to see it all slip through the tories fingers because they are so entrenched in their own dogma.

And potentially we could have a [i]coalition[/i] centre ground government that literally represents the majority of voters for once.

Last time this happened Labour had the most seats but the Tory [Ted Heath] didn't resign either

because that the rules

No, I'm pointing out that those are the rules to which the political parties abide by. If Cameron becomes PM perhaps they should change it? Never going to happen.

They've taken 90 odd seats off them. FFS are you suggesting that we let the most unpopular party rule?

Not unpopular enough though were they?

You have also got to realise that while the Tories are the SINGLE biggest party, they are not the majority as the other parties have more seats combined.

If the tories get thirsk and malton, they and the DUP equal the LD and Labour.
Alone they will only have 9 less seats than the other 2 combined.
On top of the, there's the fact that Clegg actually has some morals and has stated that the party with the most should get first crack at forming a govt.
Personally, I'd quite like to see a tory/LD alliance, they might moderate each other. And, going by your rules, it would be FAR more representative of the UKs votes than a lab/LD govt.

Never mind Brown, I feel like posting a celebratory thread about getting Mandelson out of office.

I always tell folk you can't know someone you don't [i]actually[/i] know, but I make an exception with him.

The embodiment in one toady man of all that is wrong with British politics.

If the LibDems agree not to vote down a Conservative Queen's Speech, then Cameron goes to the Queen to ask permission to form a government. If Gordon doesn't vacate number 10 forthwith, the Queen sends the army in.

I suspect the last part won't be necessary though.

Listening to him droning away on the radio.

GO NOW GORDON!

CAN'T YOU TAKE A HINT!

He's like that guest you invite to a party who just won't go home when it's over, and keeps boring you to tears with his dull anecdotes even though he's the only person left and you just want to go to bed.

Gordon Brown will hang on until grim death, he was not elected to become PM in the last election and got the job by accident not by the ballot box. It was quite amusing to see him trying to act like a statesman outside No 10 this morning, get the hint Gordon time to fall on your sword!

Last time this happened Labour had the most seats but the Tory [Ted Heath] didn't resign either

Labour/Lib Dem coalition simply won't be a workable government - even with SDLP and Alliance they're still 7 seats short of a majority (though in reality given the terrorists don't take their seats you only really need 324, so they're only 5 seats short). They'd need the support of the SNP to get anything through (as no other coalition gives them enough seats).

The conservatives got the majority but not the legal amount.

Few options and it is based on the Lib Dems and Tory negotiations.

Lib Dems will Back Tory Dave if they can agree.

Shock would be if Lib dems backed labour or choose to be independant which nobody can see but you never know.

How long will it be until we know?

The thing is, Gordon knows he's a goner whatever happens (even if Labour/Lib Dem do try to form a minority coalition it will be without him), so he might as well hang on for a few more days to give him time to pack his stuff. The constitutional question here is, if the current incumbent can't form a government behind him (I don't believe there's any way he can) does somebody else from the same party still have priority?

though in reality given the terrorists don't take their seats

Who are you talking about?

1. What the hell. Nothing will really change. Well nothing that will make a difference to the normal man in the street.
2. Whats pissing me of is this pact thingy. Call it ignorance if you like but absolutley no where have i seen the idea that a governemnet can be anything but the party with the most seats. Ie Tories have the PM. Theyhave the most seats. Agreed they may not win the various votes within parliament. ONLY Now do I hear that its possible that 2 parties can get together and because they have more seats in total do they have the PM. Am I confuse/dim or totally effing furious. Lets say I voted LL. Its because I want them in. Not one of the others. If my LL vote went, say to labour, which put them back in I would be furious.
Have I got this straight or not? Admit to ignorance partly because I disaprove of party politics. Too many MPs back their party when they should back their constituency that put them in place. Even and especially if it differs from what their party wants. Ditto personal preference.

Who are you talking about?

Sinn Fein.

WTF? They've taken 90 odd seats off them. FFS are you suggesting that we let the most unpopular party rule?

I'm suggesting there should be a Lib/Labour/SNP coalition 😉 - which would be more popular than the Tories were. Honestly - the tories couldn't even manage to convincingly beat one of the most unpopular prime ministers in history, in the middle of a financial crisis.

Are Sinn Fein terrorists?

From above"Tories haven't won anything yet. And honestly, would anyone want Cameron as PM when he couldn't even garner enough seats to get his party first past the post and beat Brown?"
But he has. He has more seats so he has beaten him. Like it or not he should be the Pm.
Anyway back to the original post.
Brown was C of E? hadn't noticed. Even so he has ****ed me up. I work,pay taxes, drive, live I the countryside, respect the law and occasionally use the NHS. In every case I am worse of now than 20 years ago. If he was C of E it his fault. He wasn't even voted in.

Are Sinn Fein terrorists?

Not currently. But they never take up their seats in Westminster, it being the belly of the beast and all. So it affects the number of seats a coalition would need.

I'm suggesting there should be a Lib/Labour/SNP coalition

the tories couldn't even manage to convincingly beat one of the most unpopular prime minister blah blah

Lib/Labour/SNP coalition

Gordon will love that. He's never managed to be prime minister by winning an election before, why should he start now?

But he has. He has more seats so he has beaten him. Like it or not he should be the Pm.

Does anyone understand first past the post? Or are you all crying foul because it hasn't delivered the right result for you?

I like Gordon Brown and want him to stay. Are people not better of now than they were 2 years ago??

ThankYouVeryMuch

breatheeasy - Member

Doom mongers again...
Goodbye NHS if Dave gets in and unless you're on £150K min you will lose out.

Can no one else see the irony in those statements.

Doh! will read my posts before posting lol

Sinn Fein members would refuse to swear allegiance to the Queen, meaning they would therefore forfeit the right to vote in Parliament. Meaning that being there would be a waste of time. I see.

So Aracer's just being a bit inflammatory by calling them 'terrorists' then? Ok.

For a horrible moment, I thought Al-Quaeda had infiltrated British Politics...

In every case I am worse of now than 20 years ago

Hmm, sorry to hear that. Care to explain how?

it's plain for everyone to see that the tories won. No majority, but have still won

They got 2.1 MILLION more votes and 48 more seats

. [b]Ie Tories have the PM. Theyhave the most seats. Agreed they may not win the various votes within parliament[/b]. ONLY Now do I hear that its possible that 2 parties can get together and because they have more seats in total do they have the PM. Am I confuse/dim or totally effing furious. Lets say I voted LL. Its because I want them in. Not one of the others. If my LL vote went, say to labour, which put them back in I would be furious.

If any party should have the right to be part of a govt, it should be one with the most votes/seats (whichever) BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES THAT THE MOST PEOPLE WANT.

Dont get me wrong here I think all parties have some sort of moral claim here but Dave is the best initally. He wont pay the price the Lib Dems ask for so I cant really see how this will pan out.

I'd say it was convincing personally. 2.1million others would as well.

Electoral system understanding fail once again.

he is correct as, like your grasp. Dave has a simple majority not an absolute majority so his moral authority is not absolute

Electoral system understanding fail once again.

yyyup 🙂

So Aracer's just being a bit inflammatory by calling them 'terrorists' then?

Apologies for worrying you though.