- Reaction score
- 1,207
WHAT IS THE TRUTH??
I'll give you the truth
I'm going down the pub.
Though I'm not sure you're ready for it.
Discuss Pre-election budget in the Electricians Chat - Off Topic Chat area at ElectriciansForums.net
WHAT IS THE TRUTH??
I'll give you the truth
I'm going down the pub.
Though I'm not sure you're ready for it.
I think Brown was the unluckiest PM ever. I also think he would have been a good PM if he had the job to start with. The "deal" between him and Blair destroyed him. He was tortured by it....It consumed him (Taken from some political memoirs I have read). The economy was going just "fine" until the crash. It was his spending just prior to taking over (An attempt at prompting feel good factor for the start of his premiership.)...that IMHO is what stuffed up what could have been a great legacy. That coupled with the fact that the "job" proved too big for him, I think it would have been easier for him 10 years previous.
He got a ton of inherited problems with regards to the voters turning on Labour as the reality of two wars was hitting home. He had floods, he had foot in mouth disease....and then just incase he weren't paying attention he copped the banking crisis.
Blair became obsessed with the world stage, where I think Brown would have contented himself with keeping the UK safe.
As said I have read some memoirs from this period and it has been said that the action taken by Brown and Darling actually saved the world banking system. Apparently they had drawn up plans to deploy troops on the streets prior to coming up with the refinancing bailout plan. They really feared that banks were not going to open their doors from the Monday onwards....with no bugger having access to ANY cash. Now as much as we all hate the bank bailout.....not having any cash would have been a bit of a pain.....
"They" buggered up a few things with the bailout....ie people should have been in the dock, lost their bonuses, lost their pensions.....but "they" bottled that as unbelievably even at the final hour bankers were holding out for a better deal...denying that there were any problems.....So they had to be sweetened as part of the deal.....Bloody outrageous. They should have threw the chancers behind bars to await trial and got on without them.
But yep I will stand up for Brown.
I await the back lash. :}
Theres always one!
Some of my pro Brown stuff is "opinion" but you can't argue with the facts. I remember the run up to 2010.....All the press were screaming about Brown being an unelected leader, Every day it was either in print or on TV ect ect, Stoking up the Anti Brown feeling throughout England especially (I seem to remember the "No one voted for this Scottish One Eyed git.....") That was the narrative and it was gobbled up hook line and sinker by the masses.....much in the same way as the UKIP agenda has captured the attention of the masses.
And yet before him there was John Major who was not voted in by anyone....He also waited until the last possible moment to call an election....Brown done nothing different....But I don't remember any media shouting about the unelected grey haired git in Number 10.....
Brown made mistakes, But I stand by that he was super unlucky.....unlike teflon tony.
Isn't it funny how people's memory fades. In 1992 John Major and the conservatives had the highest number of votes cast by the electorate for any single party in UK history yet he only got a very slim majority.
But in 1997 New Labour got a landslide with far fewer votes and far more seats.
Go figure
Isn't it funny how people's memory fades. In 1992 John Major and the conservatives had the highest number of votes cast by the electorate for any single party in UK history yet he only got a very slim majority.
But in 1997 New Labour got a landslide with far fewer votes and far more seats.
Go figure
What do you want us to figure?
Labour got a landslide with a far larger percentage of the vote.
When far fewer votes cast
My memory serves me fine thanks. I did not mention about Major's vote share, I believe I was referring to the fact that he presided over the country as PM for roughly two years before putting himself before the electorate not much different (maybe 9-10 months). Yet nobody was crying about the fact that we had an unelected PM.....fast forward to Brown and all hell breaks loose. Just pointing out that it was/is double standards. "They" were out to get Brown from the start of his premiership. They being Labour's own Blairites who never forgave him for forcing Blair out plus the Tories (as is expected) plus the media which is to this day pretty right wing (in my opinion).Isn't it funny how people's memory fades. In 1992 John Major and the conservatives had the highest number of votes cast by the electorate for any single party in UK history yet he only got a very slim majority.
But in 1997 New Labour got a landslide with far fewer votes and far more seats.
Go figure
My memory serves me fine thanks. I did not mention about Major's vote share, I believe I was referring to the fact that he presided over the country as PM for roughly two years before putting himself before the electorate not much different (maybe 9-10 months). Yet nobody was crying about the fact that we had an unelected PM.....fast forward to Brown and all hell breaks loose. Just pointing out that it was/is double standards. "They" were out to get Brown from the start of his premiership. They being Labour's own Blairites who never forgave him for forcing Blair out plus the Tories (as is expected) plus the media which is to this day pretty right wing (in my opinion).
Major's vote share got him elected so I can't really see your point, Apart from the fact that the Tories were so busy arguing and back stabbing each other (As they still are today) that Major in a similar way to Cameron today just can't coral them into a focussed party with a clear set of policies and goals. Milliband is the same - he can't get the warring factions within the Labour party to pull together for a common goal. The Blairites are still bitter and vengeful, the left of the party feel isolated and ignored, the Scottish have had enough of them and the unions are getting stick from their membership for continuing to financially support them.....Tough old job IMHO.
Both of the big two have neglected their core vote in the chase for the middle ground swing voter. I preferred it when there was a clear choice and clear direction for both parties.....true to their roots. I still maintain that Labour would have won in 1997 with a much more socialist agenda....But they did fix a hell of a lot that the 17 year tory government had left to rot (NHS/Schools/services ect ect).
What do you want us to figure?
Labour got a landslide with a far larger percentage of the vote.
Lets try FACTS shall we boys:
1992 - The Conservatives polled 41.9% of the votes and won 336 seats, Labour polled 34.4% and won 271 seats
1997 - The Conservatives polled 30.7% of the votes and won 165 seats, Labour polled 43.2% and won 418 seats
I'd hardly say that the "extra" 1.3% of the votes is "far larger" is it?
You need to go back to the election in 1931, to find an election when a single party poled more that 50% of the vote!
............
Reply to Pre-election budget in the Electricians Chat - Off Topic Chat area at ElectriciansForums.net
We get it, advertisements are annoying!
Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.