Personally, I think the influence of the “Tory press” is overstated. They print what their readers want to read, as much as they try to lead opinion. I mean, for all their support Cameron didn’t get a majority, did he?
Anyway, does anyone know what the opinion polls say about a referendum on PR? I would have guessed that it would be a popular idea.
That is exactly the situation we have in Sweden (regarding size, not the strength and popularity bits):
There are two main coalitions, the right-wing “Alliance for Sweden” and the left-wing red-green block. The largest party by far was the Social Democrats with 35% of the vote. The next largets was the Moderates with 26% of the vote, yet the Prime Minister is from the Moderates as the “Alliance for Sweden” has a very slim majority (only 2%).
I don’t have a vote here, as I am not a citizen, but I am sure I would have voted for a member of the red-green block. Having said that, there is no way you could describe the current government as weak and as far as popularity goes well, sometimes they are popular and sometimes they are not. That’s politics. A major poll in the last weak showed that if there was an election today the Alliance would get voted back in, yet a year ago the red-green lot would have made it.
A lot of utter bullshit has been said by both Labour and the Tories in the run up to the election regarding coalitions and hung parliaments. I put the poor performance of the LibDems (and for the record, I didn’t vote as I felt I had no real connection to any party) down to this negative campaigning by Labour and the Tories, which was especially weird as the Tories moaned about others trying to use “scare tactics” when that is exactly what they did regarding hung parliaments.
Funnily enough, a friend of mine from that constituency was telling me the other day that when he lived in another area someone tried to use his vote. 
Nick Clegg has apparently told Gordon Brown that any coalition between Lib Dems and Labour couldn’t work with Gordon still in post. 
By all accounts this did not go down well… the ensuing rant by Gordon seeming to prove Clegg’s point about the impossibility of working with such a “difficult” character
(cf. this thread where certain pro-Gordon cheerleaders try to pretend he’s all sweet reason and light… looks like that’s not quite the true picture after all!)
How long was he in power? And when did the accusations that he was a big bully start?
Just curious whether you know exactly when these comments began.
From his time in No. 11 as chancellor, well before he became leader.
And as soon as be moved into No 10 members of his own party were predicting that Brown would be a “f*cking awful Prime Minister”, and cabinet ministers went on TV saying “it won’t be long before you’re all saying ‘I wish we could have Tony Blair back’”.
This is not recent news.
So, carry on. Who made these allegations, and is there any likelihood of it being disgruntled Labour party members, or those with axes to grind, who made them?
He’s been PM since June 2007, when Blair stepped down. The claims that his behaviour has been bullying have dogged him pretty much since then, some more recent ones have just popped up. Given his pre-election blunder it wouldn’t really surprise me if the allegations have a grain of truth.
This was reported in the Sun. The BBC subsequently reported it as being nonsense. Who to believe…
Can we have a ban on using “news” reports from The Sun, please? Would anyone on here use a story from the National Enquirer as a source backing up one of their comments?
Have a read through Andrew Rawnsley’s book “The End of the Party” for wider details.
Read Nick Robinson’s blog for info on Brown’s relationship with the media.
David Miliband gave the warning on Question Time that we’d soon wish Blair was back.
John Hutton said Brown would be a “f*cking disaster” as PM.
Watch the Sky News interview where he sulks and eventually storms off because the interviewer won’t ask the questions *he *wants to answer.
Tom Bradby (one of ITN’s most inoffensive reporters) wrote:
Andrew Rawnsley, Adam Boulton, Nick Robinson, Tom Bradby… these are all experienced political journalists, and although they have a story to chase you cannot simply dismiss their reports as partisan or one-sided.
Read the details of the bullying investigation run by the Cabinet Office, and the notes that the head of the Civil Service sent to Brown to tell him not to treat his staff badly.
The problem is with your phrase “those with axes to grind”… that seems a intellectually cheap way of claiming that any criticism of Brown is politically / personally / commercially motivated and can therefore be discounted.
Sadly if the myriad reports all over the media, from his Dept and his own party are not enough to convince you that Gordon is a w*anker I can’t see what would.
You more of a Daily Star man, Ivan?
Daily Mirror man, through and through. It has the best horse racing layout of any of the tabloids.
And I do like the idea of a mirror that reflects society, even if it is a bit smudged in places.
This is all very well, but has nothing to do with the issue; ivan was specifically doubting one claimed instance of bastardliness, which has been refuted quite strongly by both Labour and Lib Dem sources. The latter in particular would have no real reason to do so if it were true, since a Brown exit is something they surely desire.
Just because Gordon is a tetchy sod (and he clearly is) doesn’t mean we should accept any story we’re given that plays to this reputation.
This is what the BBC reported initially said:
The offical denial from the Lib Dems reads:
Obviously the nature of UK political reporting is such that unless you get quotes on tape (i.e. “that bigotted woman”) they are always couched in terms like “a senior source said”, or “sources close to the PM” etc, which makes it hard to confirm or reject any given story.
Nevertheless it still highlights the fact that Brown’s personal reputation is such that stories such as these are plausible, and that on its own (however unfair it might seem) might make his continued role in any coalition leadership untenable.
Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t want to see “cuddly and approachable” on any PM of mine’s resumes.
But “emotionally stunted, bullying thug” is OK? :dubious:
Well, I think his continued role is pretty much untenable anyway, but while I certainly agree that Brown’s established character is in line with this story, that doesn’t make it true. Its plausibility just means it echoes around the twitterverse, and rapidly becomes accepted fact.
I also get cranky with this “a senior Lib Dem source” rubbish, although everyone does it. It’s typical of the access journalism that’s endemic in the UK. If the senior source really believes this, let him put his name behind it. Enough of this piping of snide briefings direct to the public with no attribution. There are numerous factions in the Lib Dems; maybe this is one of the Whiggish ones who’d rather see a Lib/Con alliance, and is trying to sabotage the Lib/Lab talks. Like you say, without attribution, we have no way of knowing.
And Ivan, I don’t necessarily want “cuddly and approachable” either, but “incapable of taking criticism” is not an attractive trait, and at this point there’s more than enough evidence to indict Brown of that, whether or not this story regarding the phone call is true.
I get your point, but I still don’t think who gets the toughest job in the country should be decided by a personality contest.
But personality plays a big part in politics; it determines diplomatic abilities, for one thing. Brown’s personal comments on “some bigoted woman” made quite an impression on people. Even if it shouldn’t have an effect, it does, and it’s only reasonable to take that into account even when you’d prefer it didn’t happen.