Jeremy Clarkson calls Gordon Brown a c**t...

[Sam Slater]

Story of your life, Keith.

[Robches]

Richard Branson actually evaded Purchase Tax, not VAT, and I don't think he has ever been an arms dealer, though Tubular Bells could be used as an instrument of torture I suppose.

Technically, it is true, we elect an individual as our MP, not a party or a party leader. Thus, even if our MP changes parties, we are stuck with him until the next election. But in reality, most party leaders who become PM mid term want their own mandate. Anthony Eden, Harold Macmillan and John Major all took over as PM, but went on to win general elections. This is what Brown bottled out of in 2007, and there is no doubt that he was planning an election and changed his mind. It does affect his relationship with the British people: they never voted for the Labour Party led by him at a general election. It doesn't mean he is not legally the PM, but it does matter.

True, Brown is the elected MP for Fife, not much of a challenge for a Labour candidate. The fact is, he has never fought a proper election personally, either to become PM or leader of the Labour Party. That is a flaw on his part, and it can be seen by his poor performance as PM that he is just not up to the job.

[Sam Slater]

Some good points there, Robches.

I do think, however, that the calling of elections from PMs who been handed a leadership mid-term have more to do with timing and opinion polls rather than feelings of guilt. It's the reason why Major called one after just 18 months (Labour were regrouping and raising in opinion polls) and Brown is waiting (Tories are top of the opinion polls but could drop again if this recession eases off).

As for Brown's not winning an election as PM affecting the British people: well, you're half right; a more accurate statement would be it affects his relationship with 'some' British people. It doesn't affect me because I'm more interested in what gets done, not who does it.

[max_tranmere]

Sam, I must correct you. John Major called an election after 18 months because he had to. The Tories, under Margaret Thacher, had been elected in Spring 1987 and Major took over in later-1990. The 5 year term was up by spring 1992 so he had to call an election.

[Sam Slater]

My mistake. Thought it was 89 for some reason. So Major didn't call an election out of principle, then, did he? So Brown's doing just what the last leader did who became PM mid-term.

[max_tranmere]

Yes. What Major did is just the same as what Brown has done. In both cases there were calls for them to have an election. The Labour leader at the time, Neil Kinnock said "I want a general election and I want one now". Major didn't announce one though - probably because he knew he wouldn't win it. Just like Brown two years ago.

[Robches]

All true, but Eden, Macmillan and Major all had an election within two years of becoming PM. At the last election, Blair gave the distinct impression that he would serve as PM for most of the term, and I expect he meant it, but Brown and his allies got rid of him within 18 months, in what was, in effect, a coup. The British people voted for a Blair led government, they got a Brown led government, that's what offends people. It wouldn't be so bad if Brown was any good, but he's shown that he's bloody useless!

[max_tranmere]

Rob, Blair wasnt ousted in a coup, he resigned over the cash-for-honours scandal. People were giving money to the Labour Party and it was alledged they were getting seats in the House Of Lords as a result. Tony Blair was interviewed by the Police under caution over this, and he was the first Prime Minister ever to be interviewed by the Police under caution over anything. So he resigned and Gordon The Ego took over. I think Blair was intending to do the full term otherwise, which would have annoyed Brown even more as he was desperately waiting to take over. I'm pretty sure the Tories will win next year and the Labour Party will be out for a generation.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]All true, but Eden, Macmillan and Major all had an election within two years of becoming PM.[/quote]

True, as did Sir Douglas-Home, but Macmillan apart they were all forced to call elections within 2 years because terms were coming to an end. If previous MPs who've taken over mid-term were that bothered about getting a public mandate then they would all call immediate elections, a bit like Eden did. Why wait 18 months, 36 months or 3 years? They wait, or rush into elections based on timing, not principles and so Brown is no worse in that respect.

[quote]At the last election, Blair gave the distinct impression that he would serve as PM for most of the term, and I expect he meant it, but Brown and his allies got rid of him within 18 months, in what was, in effect, a coup.[/quote]

Nah. Blair was hounded out by the press. Once they smelt blood they never gave up until they got what they wanted. They started by criticising him over Iraq and WMDs and then never let up until he stated he'd not run at the next election. Once he said that we were bombarded with headlines reading "Just go now!" and telling him that the public didn't even want him to stay for the full term. When he finally thought it was better to stand down they then cried he was going back on his word! He was fucked no matter what he did really. Of course, Brown could have been a little more supportive and his silence said everything, but it wasn't a coup like when Thatcher stepped down.

[quote]The British people voted for a Blair led government, they got a Brown led government, that's what offends people.[/quote]

But the British people also know that a PM can change at any time, and they [PMs] do so. If you don't like how the system is you can always vote for a party that promises to change it. Me, I think the system is in place the way it is to prevent instability in times of real crisis, like an assassination or death of a PM. I suppose it was brought in to prevent opposition parties forcing elections and protecting the country from perpetual political chaos.

[quote]It wouldn't be so bad if Brown was any good, but he's shown that he's bloody useless![/quote]

Well, people voted in a party where he was chancellor 3 times. They must have been impressed with how he was running the economy. I'm not too keen on him being a PM, myself, despite my defence of him on here. I wouldn't say he's a 'bad' PM who doesn't know where or what he's doing/going, but he doesn't have much character or express good social skills for me to be looked upon as a leader. In a recession, though, I do think the government are right to give priority to the economy rather than fighting a general election.

[steve56]

Branson was a card boy before he set up Virgin