Will he or won't he?

I think every sane person realises that Gordon Brown would get slaughtered in these debates. By Cameron, and by Clegg.

Whatever he's saying now, telling people he will do them, he will never commit to a live televised debate. The man is a total coward, as we have all seen over the years.

Mandelson may try and push him towards agreeing, but I suspect this will be for Mandelson's benefit, rather than that of Brown or the Labour party.

I'm not sure whether to read this before commenting or not. If he always re-writes his speeches at the last minute, how can you honestly predict what his speech will contain? If not, it's yet another example of you being used as a mouthpiece.
Still, I haven't been rude to anybody, have I?

Just look back at some of the Prime Ministers Question Time in Parliament and you can see why he is not keen. The others regularly make mincemeat of him. But he comes out with some classic comedy (e.g. "a 0% increase" talking about how he is not going to make cuts). So I hope he does do these debates and gives us some decent comedy on TV (as repeats of Dads Army are becoming a bit boring).

To be fair, Gordon would have to be an idiot to debate Cameron on telly - he just does't have the charisam.

On the other hand, unless the tories deign to realease some hint of a policy soon Cameron may be reduced to spending the hour introducing himself...

I'm all for TV debates providing there's a neutral chairperson who will insist on questions actually being answered and pull them up on any blatant lies.

Perhaps even a series of debates with different chairs would be the best option?

Given that Labour in the polls are now down at parity with the Lib Dems them maybe it is more appropriate for Brown and Clegg to have the debates and leave the Conservatives out as they are now so far ahead.

Also, given how Clegg can completely miss the important points, Brown might have a chance and make less of a fool of himself when debating e.g. the threat facing our country from restrictive paternity leave rules.

If Brown agreed to TV debates, it would make it very difficult for the plotters in Labour to topple him..........

I love car crash TV - so I'm looking forwards to Brown trying to defend:

- No more boom and bust

- Labour investment versus Tory cuts

- Killing our pensions

- Eating his own words concerning what constitutes financial responsibility when he was Shadow Chancellor

- Labour's delivery record (ha! ha!)


Come on Gordon - the public want the chance to laugh at you - it won't make up for your years of arrogance and deceit - but it will make us feel better.

I'll say one thing for Bottler Brown. He is consistent on at least one front. ^^

Gordon has previous record of running away from a fight, so why is this any different. He could have won the 'lost' election of 2007, if he had been bold, albeit with a smaller majority. As Mrs. T would say, he is frit.

Can we have lie detectors attached to each leader?

Where does this "Team Cameron" come from? It is appalling english, more Americanisms entering the lexicon of British politics. The forth coming election is for parliament and not for a President, not matter what Blair, Brown et al think.

It's all smoke and mirrors. He won't actually SAY on the record that he's offering a debate, but he has used a leak to give the impression that he will. He is trying to have the kudos of appearing to be up for a debate without actually doing it.

Classic Gordon Brown.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Kirsty McNeill I think her name is.

If his debate is as full of self-congratulation and as unctuous and smarmy as Mandelson's dire display of sound bites yesterday, then he is fooling himself, as the public are just not that credulous. They may be preaching to the choir at their conference, but the public are watching and less than impressed. Grinning like a Cheshire cat and focusing on his tedious self serving mantras such as "best man for the job", "saving the world", will be acutely counter-productive.

Honestly, watching the Labour party conference yesterday, there were more sticking heads in sand than a regiment of Ostriches. Do they really think the public were born yesterday? They will find out come election day. Our memories are not that short.

There is no way that Brown will appear in a debate where he will have to answer questions he has not agreed to answer. He would find it impossible to defend his government's record over the past ten years without losing his temper. I suspect the British public have now seen enough of him and his party to last them for the next fifty years anyway, and just want him to leave office as soon as possible so that someone can make a start on trying to repair the damage.As for Clegg taking part in any debates, one has to ask,,, Why ?

This idea of a TV debate has come largely as a result of the Murdoch Media, in the shape of SKY news.

For that reason I'm against it- Mr Murdoch already exerts an undemocratic influence on UK politics, and from what I've experienced of Fox news I seriously doubt both the impartiality of Murdoch's network and their intentions in staging the debate in the first place.

But thats just my opinion.

yeah come on then brown we've had enough of your arrogance and complete contempt of the British public .Come in on have your say we have a few questions we would like two have answered leave Mr Cameron alone he will be working his butt off after the next election trying two stabilize the sinking ship.with all pumps working full pelt.

"Drafts of his conference speech yesterday contained a promise to do what no British prime minister has done before: to call for a series of TV debates with his opponents not just during the election campaign but starting now. Once again, however, Gordon Brown has shied away at the final hurdle. An offer to debate will not now be in his conference speech because, I'm told, "he wants to focus on policy not tactics"."

QFS.

He wont do it now. In fact he wont do it, full stop.

He'll volunteer his successor for it. He'll either jump to the G20 or go on health grounds and whoever the night watchman/woman ends up being prior to the electoral bloodbath at the next election will be the one left holding the flag.

Cameron vs Hattie?? Now, that would be funny. Hattie can barely handle BBC's Question Time, let alone being faced by Cameron. Or Clegg for that matter.

For a man who'se allegedly written books on the subject of Courage, its lamentable that the man holding the highest office in the land doesnt have a single microscopic shred of it.

It seems that Brown is trying to put on a one-man show of The Wizard of Oz, sometimes he acts lost, and at other times he seems to be lacking a brain, a heart and courage.

I actually believe that the impression Gordon gives publicly isn't the true impression but we are just not seeing it.

Cameron is a polished performer but we don't really know what he stands for, we don't really know what Brown stands for either but he comes across as much less polished.

I for one would actually welcome a debate on policies as none of the problems really seem to have any that I can think of.

Can we be sure that there will be an election next June. I wouldn't put it past Brown to declare a state of emergency and refuse to call the elections. Afterall he is 'the man for the job' and it's not a time for beginners.

Look how angry Brown got on the BBC's Andrew Marr programme the other day, when he was confronted with a question he didn't want to answer and didn't know how to handle...

There is no way Brown would subject himself to that from the other party leaders - he's a natural born coward. As others have said, he'll set out the smoke and mirrors now to give the impression that he'll do the debate, but when the time comes he'll bottle it.

I can't even imagine the strength of the medication required should Brown somehow end up doing this debate... do anti-depressants come in elephant doses?

"kaybraes wrote:
There is no way that Brown will appear in a debate where he will have to answer questions he has not agreed to answer. He would find it impossible to defend his government's record over the past ten years without losing his temper. I suspect the British public have now seen enough of him and his party to last them for the next fifty years anyway, and just want him to leave office as soon as possible so that someone can make a start on trying to repair the damage.As for Clegg taking part in any debates, one has to ask,,, Why ?"

Well the obvious answer is that Clegg COULD be the leader of the opposition if there is a total collapse in the Labour vote, I am sure there are people who still hate the Tories but can't continue to vote for Labour who could be seriously considering a vote for the Lib Dems.

As for Labour being out of power for 50 years - it is possible that they may never recover. If they drop to the third party in England AND Scotland votes to leave the Union the Labour party may tear itself apart OR they maybe re-elected in 5 years after a term of tough-love from the Tories.

Nick:

Honestly; I don't know honestly...I think it is a half and half in regards: Will he or won't he....

=Dennis Junior=

Browns idea of starting debates now is clearly a tactical move.

It allows him to draw out the Conservative policies that they want to keep tight to their chest until the election. Labour are desperate to know the policies in advance, they will then devote the full resources of government to analyse them. Of course it will be done under the guise of considering the policies for implementation. The taxpayer funded research would then be selectively used to ridicule them.

It also allows a chance to double dip for Labour.

If the debates go disastrously wrong for Labour, they can still ditch their leader before the election, and bring in a new one. As is on the cards anyway.

The Conservatives should agree to a series of debates, but starting once the election has been declared. With a typical campaign lasting 4 weeks, it allows the opportunity for several debates (as Gordon suggests), whilst keeping the Conservatives policies away from Labour taxpayer funded propaganda.

If were going to have a political debate lets have all in not just three sides the countrys got more people than that.Let the people decide in were say a referendum?

I can't see that Brown will appear in a debate. What would his line of argument be?

The economy is sound?

The economy is in a mess but it wasn't my fault?

Both are less than the truth.

Nick:

So, over to you Gordon?

Yes, it is over to Gordon Brown.....

=Dennis Junior=

Perhaps he has had a sanity check; and realised that he could only look bad in such a debate. The performance with Andrew Marr was not good. The thumping his hand and pointing looked like someone emphasising an untruth, looking to beat the other person with a stick. His style does not lend itself to live debate.

There is also the point about being unprepared for the questions. Going back to the Sunday programe he appeared to answer before the question was out of Andrew Marr's mouth.

No Nick. Gordon Brown is famous for other things.

Many years ago, two little boys shared a bedroom. One little boy had a soap box and one day they agreed he would be Prime Minister. The other little boy had a Woolworths calculator, but no battery; he they decided would be Chancellor.

Years later these things came to pass and they each got their chosen job. Sadly the soap box reached the end of its useful days, so the first little boy decided the game wasn't fun any more and went on tour playing at being royalty instead.

The second little boy though playing Chancellor, never actually got to be Chancellor as the calculator still needed a battery. He decided seeing as the spot was empty, he would bully all the other little boys in the playground and he would be Prime Minister. Unfortunately he doesn't have a soap box and two other little boys have more sweeties to buy friends with.

It's rumoured the soap box broke because the second little boy was a bit on the tubby side and tried it out for size during detention.

So the chances of the tubby little boy with no friends having a debate with the sons of the sweet shop owner is nil.

I don't believe there should be a debate. This is not the USA where you vote for the leader. In this country, we vote for the candidates standing in our own constituency. So if people are voting based on a leadership debate, it will take away any local issues, and could result in some excellent MPs losing their seats, or a good candidate failing to win one.

Making the general election all about the leaders of the 3 biggest parties is not the way our democracy works. (And in Scotland, one of those leaders isn't in the top 3 parties anyway.)

He's a quitter not a fighter; even according to his own fans.

So no TV debate then.

Although it would have amusement value if nothing else listening to Brown defending his golden rule; his tripartite structure of regulation; his sale of our gold; the collapse in the pension system; the lack of money for our troops; the inability to reform the NHS and education; his legendary bad temper; the national debt; the politicising of the police; the politicising of the civil service and the Treasury... all this and newlabour apologists have the gall to call David Cameron without policeis..

Quite franky I'd rahter he had no policies at all than continue woth any of the newlabour disasters we have suffered for twelve years.

And yesterday was the ultimate in why newlabour will never get the national debt under control; at the first opportunity to grandstand they announced a renewal of the car scrappage scheme spending our money. For newlabour it will never be the right time to start cuttting spending; they are like a greedy adolescent who is always promising to stop eating sweets after one last one. They are immature and should quit while they're behind.

Call an election.

I do hope so. I could do with a laugh.

From Nick's blog....... He (Gordon Brown)will challenge the Tories to come clean on their policies, telling voters "you have a right to know".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Meaning of course that he is out of ideas and desperately wants someone elses policies to steal.

Two articles in today's papers read in juxtaposition sum up Labour's situation perfectly:
'Mandelson gives a barnstorming performance'
'Latest poll shows Labour in third place'
Priceless :-)

It was interesting comparing Nick's reporting of the conference against Tom Bradbury's on ITV.

Nick gets to see drafts of Brown's speech as he is happy to follow the Labour spin. The mre critical Bradbury has to rely on gossip & is clearly not part of the same inner circle.

Nick is a good commentator but his desire to be close to power threatens his independence.

If these debates are to take place, there should be a series of debates between party spokesmen on all major topics: foreign affairs, home affairs, economy etc, etc. If debate is limited to the party leaders, then it will be short on substance, and take us one step closer to the Presidential system of government that Mrs Thatcher and Mr Blair have pushed us towards.

TV Debate? From the man who doesn't have the courage to appear on Question Time? I don't think so.

Actually that's an idea - get the debate (if they happen, which I doubt) to be moderated/chaired by David Dimbleby.

Is this another red herring as the media concentrate on the 'debate' rather than the policies?

Seeing how Gordon rarely actually answers questions except with 'we did this, we did that and we don't do what the tories did or will do..' standard response, I can't see how this is going to benefit Gordon.

Unlike PMQ's, Cameron will be able to defend his party and his policies against the pointless attacks that Brown is used to making in the house.

I am not sure how his scripted responses are going to work in this environment?

"Gordon Brown is famous for rewriting his speeches right up to the last minute."

Oh, come on, you do the man a diservice. He's famous for other things as well. Wrecking the UK economy springs to mind. If Brown had confined himself to doing no more than writing the occasional speech we'd all be better off.

be surprised if Mortimax agrees to any sort of series of live TV debates with Brown, maybe one at the most - not so much because he might get "beaten" (although that's likely) but more that he's way ahead in the polls and it would constutute an unnecessary risk

It is easy to see the number of vacuous Tories that pollute this blog, one can only presume it is a ruse by Head Office to "get the message out" further about the invincible, unassailable Conservative lead.

Brown has conviction and experience in government and is an experienced parliamentarian of some 30 years. He used to make mincemeat out of a succession of Tory Shadow Chancellors across the floor of the Commons and holds his own during often difficult times as Prime Minister.

He has more substance and experience than both Cameron and Clegg put together. Asked to debate on issues Brown would wipe the floor with both, such is his ability to debate and make lucid points and arguments. However I fear it won't matter, such is the increasingly personal, manicured, bite sized vacuousity of our politics. People will no doubt talk about how awkward he is and how gruff he looks, which to me is just packaged up insidiously in a way that masks the fact that vast amounts of people don't want their country run by a Scotsman.

A debate I am sure would be a terrible error by the Tories, it would have the opposite effect they are looking for. It would chip away at their lead. It would bring Brown closer to Cameron, and it would inevitably show people that Cameron is not that great an alternative to Brown. The more debates there are, the more disastrous this will be for the Tories. They may even lose this seemingly already decided election yet. Labout strategists everywhere must be licking their lips at this Tory strategy faux pas. It has given Brown and Labour oxygen, and it will give them a chance to nail the Lib Dems shallowness, which they will do.

Maybe these debates should be compulsory. In a democracy functioning in the media age, voters have a right to see such debates. The format would be set down by the broadcasters as in the party political broadcasts. People are tired of these silly posturings by party leaders.

Is the British public suffering from selective memory loss? Did we moan about Gordon Brown and Labour whilst we were all doing very nicely thankyou over the last decade? No, far from it. We enjoyed feeling wealthier and we enjoyed unfettered access to more with no complaints. And now, when things aren't so great, 'we' choose to turn and bite, transforming our own selfishness and greed into loathing for one man and his party. The British are very good at showing contempt and it's a most unappealing trait. And if he is suffering poor health it's certainly none of our business.

What I find utterly depressing in this country is the blatant fickleness of so many people when it comes to elections. Time and again people blather on witlessly about the Prime Minister's personality - are we seriously saying that this is what we want from the chief executive of our nation? He/she can be the blandest bod in history for all I care - we need serious people in charge not personalities _ and do remember that we do NOT have a presidential system here; we vote for a party and that party can elect a new leader when it wishes without our intervention. For all his failings (and he does have many) Gordon Brown is a serious man and that's just fine...a Tory Britain is simply too depressing to contemplate...if they get in, just wait for the powder and wigs to come out at first cabinet and the guffaws to start.

So go on Mr Brown, take the Tories on please- in a serious debate Mr Cameron's weaknesses will shine through..and Mr Clegg? Well, he's missed a golden chance...

Never has a man so badly needed some serious flooding or an outbreak of foot and mouth.

This ought to add fuel to the fire of Lord Ashcrofts astroturfers. If such people exist. Maybe the media should concentrate on policy and how it will affect real people instead of shallow personality based infotainment contests. Maybe each leader can do a powerpoint presentation? and Maybe the media thinks the universe was created so it can make programs?

David Cameron recently accepted Sky News' invitation to a televised live debate within two hours of receiving it, Nick Clegg within about 4 or 5 hours and Gordon Brown was "giving it his full consideration" some three or four days later. A bit like his quick election decision a couple of years ago. You must remember, it was just after he wasn't elected as Prime Minister.

A live debate is just a turn off with any of them as they never answer the question they are asked. So we might as well judge them on a manifesto.... i seem to recall one that had a referendum in it ??? mmmmmmmmm they cant keep to manifesto's either.........so its down to a guess....

well my guess will be Gordon will be trounced....

After each answer can we have Jon Bird and John Fortune give a short analysis, as they do it so well, on what the leader actually ment by their answer?

1. Mister_E_Man wrote:
I think every sane person realises that Gordon Brown would get slaughtered in these debates. By Cameron, and by Clegg.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you sure.
Since all of the parties seem to be saying pretty much the same thing these days, I can’t see any debate getting past personal slanging matches.

The next election will be fought around cuts to services, but nobody has the guts to tell us what we need to know IE where these cuts will be?

Dave (for he has asked us to call him that) will have to cut the angry young man routine & actually come out with some policies for once in his life.
Pretty radical stuff since the Tories don’t seem to have any at the moment.
I’m not holding my breath over it.

Throughout the Labour conference a myriad of Labour politians have compared their visionary Labour policies against the ill-thought out Tory policies.
Now there are very pro Tory newspapers about and they have failed to advise us ,the general public,what these Tory policies are.
Are we supposed to think that Labour and Tory politicians sit cosily around the fire and compare notes on policies differences.
It's nonsense of course.
Next week at the Tory conference we will hear the general direction of Tory policy and thereafter WE can make the analysis on whose policies are best to get this country out of the mess we are in.

With his speach comming up i think this video is very relivant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-nq9R4PbLk&feature=related

Gordon, there, upon the stage, Judyfied, he ain't no sage, Cameron Punch scores a hit, Says: that's the way to do it

Anybody who thinks that a debate of the party leaders will be about policy must be imbecilic and deserves another 5 years of this brain-dead government.

We need a change of government because this one, like the Tories before 1997, has changed from people preservation to self preservation.

If the political leaders do all agree to have TV debates(s), I just hope there's something decent to watch on one of the other channels - actually, there's bound to be, because ANYTHING is better than the puerile, schoolboy points-scoring we'd be subjected to. Caledonian Comment

If and when GB actually has the guts to go head to head with David Cameron, I have a question I'd like answered:

This stupid Car Scrappage scheme. Bear with me whilst I get all fiscal, but the actual numbers are as follows:

Average New Car cost - £10000. with the £2k off, down to £8000. But the VAT on that sale is currently £1200, will rise to £1400 once the 15% rate is removed. So even now, every time someone spends our taxes on safeguarding the job of a factory worker in Germany, Japan or Korea, The government benefirts to the tune of £200. That will double come January and VAT rises back to 17.5%. Currently it only costs the government money to extend this scheme when the original proce of the car was £8,666 (break-even point). That will fall to £7714 next January, making it even more of a money spinner.

So this ISN't a case of Labour giving the poor taxpayer money, in most cases it's the government making money in additional VAT on a transaction that otherwise wouldn't happen. And the only workers benefitting are those in Europe or the Far East. Not here.

So my question? Simple.

"Gordon, who on earth are you trying to fool?"

43. At 10:51am on 29 Sep 2009, sagamix wrote:
be surprised if Mortimax agrees to any sort of series of live TV debates with Brown, maybe one at the most - not so much because he might get "beaten" (although that's likely) but more that he's way ahead in the polls and it would constutute an unnecessary risk

"Mortimax"? Are you on the same medication as the PM?

And I somehow doubt that he'd lose anyway - my daughter puts up more cohesive answers to questions put to her, and she's seven....

It'll never happen, I just can't see Brown agreeing to something where he needs to think fast on his feet and can he held to account. It will be more smoke and mirrors to keep us looking the other way.

That said I would love to say Cameron being grilled by someone who will actually press him on issues, where he can't wriggle out of anything and has to give a straight answer as opposed to just popping out the soundbite of the minute.

so that poor girl kills herself and her daughter because the police, local council and lily livered goverment didnt care and now Gordon Brown decides to make law and order the centre of his speech?

forgive my cynicism but what the hell labour been up to in the past 12 years that something like this happens in the uk?

oh and brown of course jumps on it to use as a chance to bolster his speech....no doubt he will sound 'very angry' as he always does but nothing will get done.

we have had the bankers bonus 'anger' for 2 years now but nothing ever gets done....just a ploy to make you think that he is in touch with the people

as for mandelson yesterday...oh please....why does everyone get excited about this man...'if i can come back...'!

trouble is mr. mandelson the only people who bought you back are the people now clapping you not the electorate.....

"sagamix wrote:
be surprised if Mortimax agrees to any sort of series of live TV debates with Brown, maybe one at the most - not so much because he might get "beaten" (although that's likely) but more that he's way ahead in the polls and it would constutute an unnecessary risk"

Based on the fact that these polls tend to favour people with charisma rather then policies I think Cameron (lets be grown up here and try to use their actual names) would stand a better chance than Brown (who doesn't appear to have a personality OR policies)

The only problem with these debates is that Brown will probably try to do exactly what he does in PM QT and talk around the question without actually answering it - hopefully the person leading the debate will not allow that.

And I would actually argue that NOT getting involved in the debate would be a risk to the Tories - they are ahead in the polls but Labour would use any refusal to take part as an example of how Cameron is afraid to stand up to Brown.

We don't like our leaders to be seen as weak - which is one of the reasons why Brown is unpopular as he was actually ahead in the polls until he bottled calling an election.

#46 Tris

"Is the British public suffering from selective memory loss? Did we moan about Gordon Brown and Labour whilst we were all doing very nicely thankyou over the last decade?"

er....yes actually.It's pretty obvious for 11.5 of the last 12 years that Labour has been all spin and no substance. The only reason they got in 3 times was that the Tories had not recovered enough to be an attractive alternative. Now they are.

I agree Gordon Brown is a serious man...seriously out of his depth. He's not even running the show, the Ignoble Lord is. Still the Labour conference is good sport "Comrades".

This is the kind of argument that does not help to focus the mind on critical matters of importance for the country and the economy. Petty-party bickering in a two-party state is pointless. Musing over a new soap-style political system detracts from key questions about the pressing need for sweeping political and economic reforms. All it is, is a form of blood-sport for the masses.

We can no longer rely on a seventeeth century system to manage twenty first century political needs. We cannot afford the luxury of six months doing nothing in the lead up to an essentially undemocratic election. Manifestos are not binding and Independent and Minority parties have no say. Parliament has outlived it's usefulness, has shown itself to be inept, unaccountable and out of touch with the needs of the country.

The sooner we get back the key questions of total reform, the better. The current political and financial crisis should never be allowed to happen again in the future and it is no good simply blaming banker's bonuses for more fundamental failings.

@ djlazarus, post #5

"I'm all for TV debates providing there's a neutral chairperson who will insist on questions actually being answered and pull them up on any blatant lies. "

Yes, I'd be all for that, too. In fact, given this bit of Mr Robinson's blog;

"Labour's team knows that broadcasters have a legal requirement to be fair and balanced, so is working on proposals for a series of Brown v Cameron debates as well as Brown v Clegg and Cameron v Clegg."

...I'm wondering; would it work to have *Nick Clegg* as the mediator, for the Brown vs. Cameron debate?

To recepriocate; Brown could then chair the Cameron vs. Clegg debate, and Cameron could take Clegg vs. Brown.

No, it wouldn't be a *neutral* chairperson, as such - would anyone actually fit that description, as almost everybody has political leanings one way or the other (or sometimes, both) - but it *would* mean that the chair would be somebody prepared - in fact, keen - to pull the two debators up on any untruths, or evasive answering, they might try and engage in.

There should be more debates between politicans, on policy of course, and not just before an election.

Instead of a media personality interviewing a Labour spokesman this week and a Tory the next just let the politicians go head-to-head (Mandelson v Clarke, for instance).

We might even save money on BBC interviewer's salaries.

Forget about this Murdock sky stuff lets have the debate on the good old BBC I'll Spell it out for you, British Broad Casting Corporation There its not that difficult. Remember the times when we had little else as a news caster i do?Put the Great back in Great Britain before its two late.

#44 "Brown ... used to make mincemeat out of a succession of Tory Shadow Chancellors across the floor of the Commons"

Ah yes, I remember that. Brown was able to boast that he had put an end to boom and bust. When his opponents said he was overspending, when the IMF warned of an overstretched budget and a overheated housing market he was able to pontificate about how they were wrong and he was right.

May have looked like mincemeat then but now seems to be egg on face.

Our unmandated Prime Minister has a track record of hiding away from difficult "things".

The debates will be no different.

I seriously doubt that Gordon will be at the helm when the New Labour ship slips beneath the waves of electoral humiliation next May 6th, by then he will have fulfilled his purpose of stopping a General Election until other nations have decided to impose the Lisbon Treaty upon the British electorate.

Gordon Brown, inspite of his books on "Courage", has none himself & projects the image of a strong leader yet completely lacks the character, intellect & charisma needed to be believable.

With each passing day the British public lose a little more faith in the ballot box & our democracy - another of Labours legacy's, along with inter-generational debt.

#46 - Tris74.

Um, wow. I think this is a serious post? If it is, then I have to say I disagree totally with everything you have written.

During the past decade there were plenty of people who bemoaned Brown's changes to pension rules, who lamented his sale of gold at rock bottom prices (of his making), who cried out for interest rates to rise to curb the rise of house prices (and hence personal debt), who wanted some money setting aside for a rainy day, who didn't support the endless growth of the civil service and who could see that banks were lending wrecklessly. And we all had less access to the facts than Brown. So even those that were happy making hay perhaps did not realise the tightrope we were walking. Brown ceratinly did, or should have done.

With regards to Brown's personality. It is important. I don't want such a gauche, sour, egotistical, bullying man representing me and my country in international affairs. Building personal relationships is vital for successful business, and Brown is dire at this. And if is is ill (not that we know for sure, but he must be very stressed at the very least) then that most certainly is our concern. This is a man who can take us to war, raise our taxes and change our laws. I want such a person to be fit and well, and able to concentrate on the job at hand. As much as I dislike the man (I did vote for labour through the Blair years though), I do not wish him ill. If he is, he must stand down. His ego must not be allowed to get in the way of running the country (again).

#46 Tris74

Is the British public suffering from selective memory loss? Did we moan about Gordon Brown and Labour whilst we were all doing very nicely thankyou over the last decade? No, far from it. We enjoyed feeling wealthier and we enjoyed unfettered access to more with no complaints. And now, when things aren't so great, 'we' choose to turn and bite, transforming our own selfishness and greed into loathing for one man and his party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes 'the British public' were largely taken in by GB's economic miracle of no more boom and bust but is now (belatedly)realising that all we had was a debt fuelled boom leaving us with a high taxed economy and public services costing way more than we can afford.

It is often the case that when people come to their senses the backlash is all the greater for having being deceived in the first place.

I've just re-arranged my lounge to ensure the only soft items are within reach. The dog is spending the day in kennels. A large brandy in a plastic beaker is to hand and I have warned my neighbours that there may be much swearing, shouting and foaming at the mouth emanating from my premises later today.
Right, let Gordon's speech begin!

"EdenRooms wrote:
It is easy to see the number of vacuous Tories that pollute this blog, one can only presume it is a ruse by Head Office to "get the message out" further about the invincible, unassailable Conservative lead."

Yet again the Labour assumption that anyone who opposes Brown is a Tory, the majority of posters here don't like Brown and Labour because of the actions of Brown and Labour. If you look at the opinion polls approx 75% of those polled are likely to vote against Labour and yet the Tory vote is often less than 40%.

It might be hard for you to understand but in simple terms Labour are unpopular because of their own unpopularity and not because the Tories are popular.

"Brown has conviction and experience in government and is an experienced parliamentarian of some 30 years. He used to make mincemeat out of a succession of Tory Shadow Chancellors across the floor of the Commons and holds his own during often difficult times as Prime Minister."

It is easy to make mincemeat of opponents when you are on top, however it now has become clear that his "brilliance" as a Chancellor was a smokescreen based on dodgy figures and his performance as a PM has been a joke. In PM QT he only really answers the easy planted questions from his own side and either dances awkwardly around questions from Cameron or comes out with comments like "Tory cuts versus Labour investment" - and we all know how that turned out.

"He has more substance and experience than both Cameron and Clegg put together. Asked to debate on issues Brown would wipe the floor with both, such is his ability to debate and make lucid points and arguments. However I fear it won't matter, such is the increasingly personal, manicured, bite sized vacuousity of our politics. People will no doubt talk about how awkward he is and how gruff he looks, which to me is just packaged up insidiously in a way that masks the fact that vast amounts of people don't want their country run by a Scotsman."

Brown doesn't have much substance, he was a heavy hitter when he had leaked information to batter the last Tory government with, but now that the information is leaking the other way his response is to call in the police. He doesn't debate well, and prefers to list meaningless (and often incorrect) stats to answer a different question to the one he is asked.

I personally don't care that he is a Scotsman, the problem with Brown is not the part of the country he comes from or his background the problem is that he is just not very good at his job.

"A debate I am sure would be a terrible error by the Tories, it would have the opposite effect they are looking for. It would chip away at their lead. It would bring Brown closer to Cameron, and it would inevitably show people that Cameron is not that great an alternative to Brown. The more debates there are, the more disastrous this will be for the Tories. They may even lose this seemingly already decided election yet. Labout strategists everywhere must be licking their lips at this Tory strategy faux pas. It has given Brown and Labour oxygen, and it will give them a chance to nail the Lib Dems shallowness, which they will do."

As these debates tend to be more of a personality contest than a policy contest I don't really see how Brown can win - he doesn't seem to have a likable personality (or policies for that matter). While Cameron could do the whole "nice smile and nice words" thing but not actually say very much (in much the same way that Blair did).

Cameron does PR better than Brown (even Clegg does PR better than Brown) and that is going to reflect better in a debate than Brown repeating tired cliches and listing stats that nobody cares about.

46. At 10:54am on 29 Sep 2009, tris74 wrote:
Is the British public suffering from selective memory loss?

Sadly, for Mr. Brown and the rest of the GOAT herd, I rather think the British Public's recollection of what has been said, and done, vs. what has been 'revised' and mishandled, is pretty bang on.

Did we moan about Gordon Brown and Labour whilst we were all doing very nicely thankyou over the last decade?

Interesting use of the tribal 'we', there. Moving on, since it it is raised, remind me, what did Mr. Brown do during those 'good times' that has so ably positioned us (better than others, a few might claim) now?

Come on, this is just a load of hot air. It won't happen, and this is why.

i) Any attempt to set up a debate without the Lib Dems will fall foul of the Representation of the People Act

ii) Once the Lib Dems are in, the SNP and possibly Plaid Cymru will complain loud and long about exclusion in their areas. Any legal challenge the SNP, in particular, will mount will probably succeed.

iii) Cameron and/or Brown will worry about losing control of such an environment and start to get cold feet

iv) With so many participants and the resulting complexity, the broadcasters will lose interest. They will only want a one-on-one event, not a whole series.

v) The idea will quietly be dropped, with the politicians blaming the broadcasters and vice versa.

The only way round this will be if Sky (based in Luxemburg) find a way round the Representation of the People Act- and that's far too risky for everyone.

tris74 @ 46

You say that a Tory Britain is simply too depressing to contemplate ... if they get in, just wait for the powder and wigs to come out at first cabinet and the guffaws to start.

Well, what they get up to in the privacy of the Cabinet Office is their business but FWIW, I think that within a few months of being in office, Team Cameron (ugh! dreadful phrase) will have to deal with the result of the Scottish independence referendum - which may be a 'yes' for full independence.

That will be a major constitutional crisis, which I hope, as an Englishman, will see England itself emerge as a independent political entity.

Elsewhere, within those first few months, the Tory Government will probably make a start on cutting 'non-essential' public services and attempt to streamline other services.

For example, by introducing a flat-rate personal tax system within the lower threshold floating around whatever the current official 'poverty' level is (I believe it is currently some £16K or so) and eliminating the fabrication of NI contributions, then it might be possible to dispense with the services of many public sectors workers in HMRC and simultaneously boost business through a much simplified personal tax system.

Back to the thread topic, Browns 'speech of a lifetime', much as I admire anybody who can stand up and speak in public, a period of silence from Gordon Brown would be most welcome, followed by the departure of this Scottish politician along with his political professional cohort e.g. Gove, Darling etc to their native country.

We'll need more than one programme:


STUDIO MEMBER: "Prime Minister, can you tell me what you think about which departments should be cut?"

GORDON: "err... can I get back to you next week, with an answer? I need to hide at home for seven days, gauge public opinion, see which way the wind is blowing and get Peter to help me write some sound bites. Next Sunday I can then talk for over an hour about a subject that is not even in the public mind anymore because they've already moved on to other concerns that I will need another week to respond to."

good speeches don't count for anything unless followed through and this government have been lax at that. somehow the labour party believe that they have no responsibility for the state of our economy and that this predicament where in is the fault of America or "global downturn" the phrase they like to use, Gordon brown was in charge for ten years didnt he know that spending was out of control.
mandelson is the saviour now talking about changes and policy after twelve years it doesn't ring true anymore who believes labour now only the die hard socialist who will vote no labour no matter what.

Please Please don't subject us to another soap opera; Parliamentary debates will only seek to confuse Fact with Fiction

Having said that I would probably watch if the Greens, The BNP The Monster Raving Loony Party and the other so callled 'fringe' parties were invited along as well...at least it would be a laugh...and a departure from the hand gesticulated politics of the main three parties.
Well I mean in the post Blair UK, politicians cannot make a speech without using their hands to somehow reinforce the message!!!

Clearly some psychoanalyst has told them it sends a subliminal message that they are trustworthy, in my view it draws attention to the fact that it was those hands that filled in the expenses form for the second home or that 'dodgy' DVD and the plasma telly to watch it on.

The electorate needs to remember that it wasn't so long ago the rest of Europe got to vote on the "Constitution" er em "Treaty" and we were deemed to thick to understand it!

The more we can keep the PM, Cameron and his Ilk of the TV the better and can I suggest to the PM that we don't have a run up of 8 weeks of "campaigning" before the election trying to persuade the electorate that they represent us when in fact they don't, they are simply canvassing for a well paid lucrative job with lots of perks.

Two weeks of Campaigning is more than enough to either boot MP's out of office for their profligacy (at our expense) or to return them to Parliament for another 5 years where they can ignore the will of the vast majority of the population.. until that is they have to grovel before the electorate again...

Me cynical...Never!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I would say that unless the debates have the main three party leaders all together so that the points are debated at the same time then anything else would simply dilute the effect and allow certain people to attack people on different policies at different times rather than being consistent.

I would also say that Cameron and Clegg should agree to do these debates and invite Brown. If he doesn't appear, just empty chair him

I'm sure the message would quickly get through to the electorate that Brown has bottled again.

As to the speech, delivered to a half empty hall, we all know that the detail will only come out a few days down the line.

Brown has talked up many ventures, but how many of those announced and re announced things are actually successful?

This is now the worst decision Cameron has ever made politically. 15 points ahead in the polls and he has chosen to keep pushing for televised debates. We all accept that Brown has proved himself to be unbelievably flat footed but he has now been thrown a life line.

He has no further to fall, Cameron and the media have crucified Brown at every opportunity and Andrew Marr's toe curling probing on Sunday marked the bottom for me.

There's only one way for Brown to go once these debates go ahead and I'm afraid, by comparison, Cameron won't dazzle under studio lighting. He'll look, at best, overly slick and dangerously reminiscent of Brown's predecessor and at worst the hollow salesman Labour have always tried to portray him as.

The British public love an underdog, and now Brown will have several opportunities to play one. Terrible decision.

Why is it down to Brown? Or any of the other leaders? Why can't WE as the voters have the right to see who is and who might be leading us to see what they are like? ALL of them should be compelled to stand up in front of the whole population and speak and debate regularly with each other, and especially now. Just do it Brown.

If your article proves anything, it is that you are either unhealthily close to, or, worse, an adjunct of the Labour Party Press Office.
I thought you were supposed to be a journalist.

"An offer to debate will not now be in his conference speech because, I'm told, "he wants to focus on policy not tactics".

Quite right Mr Brown, a lot can change before the next election

To watch a debate one must have respect for the particpants and we need to hear promises not policies which latter category change with the wind. Politicians have neither my respect nor my trust so they can argue till the cows come home, they have lost my vote.

Hmm, not sure about this one. For two years now I've waited in vain for GB to answer a question in PMQs (apart from vacuous planted questions that is), so I would expect nothing from him apart from the usual ignore the question, claim the tories are nasty, rubbush or both. DC won't want to be drawn into policy announcements until the general election itself (and before anyone starts bleating, that's exactly the same as Labour in 96/7), so he'll stick to the usual fix the roof, recession made worse etc. NC may say some slightly useful things but they'll get lost in the odd sidelines he takes for no apparent reason. All in all I don't see much point to it.

Oh, and for those that think GB would "win" such a debate - what planet are you from? For years now GB has done nothing other than say "rubbish Tories" and quote reams of statistics. If he tried that in a televised debate most people wouldn't understand him and those that did would be able to check for themselves that his statistics are either very carefully selected, or unravel within days. He is not good at thinking on his feet or going beyond manipulated figures (eg removing the 10p tax band will leave nobody worse off, or we'll have a series of rises in spending, including a 0% rise!). He will get bogged down in denying he said "no more boom and bust" or that going from "labour investment" to "we need to cut spending" is a u-turn. Not a wise move on his part I think.

"West_London_Willy wrote:
If and when GB actually has the guts to go head to head with David Cameron, I have a question I'd like answered:

This stupid Car Scrappage scheme."

I read this morning on the Independent website that 85% of the money from the scheme went to car makers who don't build cars in this country.

"Around £85m of the £100m spent so far by the Treasury on the scrappage scheme for new cars has turned into a taxpayers' subsidy to foreign car companies with little production in the UK."

Gordon Brown has two major problems with agreeing to a live debate:

1) He is very (very) poor at it. His personal style will make him look like a numpty, a liar or a bully, or maybe all three. He will come a poor third and he knows it.

2) Apart from the economy, defence and foreign affairs, every subject he has to address - like health, education, justice, licensing, social breakdown etc etc - the things that affect the everyday lives of people watching, will only apply to England. His views will be irrelevant to the Scots who elected him, largely to the Welsh and N. Irish who have devolution in limited form too, and will anger the English who don't. It will serve only to remind them just how badly they have been served by Labour's lop-sided constitutional tinkering. His speech to the conference today will have the same effect if he mentions any of those subjects, which of course he will.

Gordon Brown is political toast. He knows it, Mandelson knows it, the media know it, and so do the thinking public throughout the UK. He may as well leave the seat empty and let the other two hold the debate without him, because that is the reality of political situation - he is now irrelevant.

He is aiming for the old Stalinist technique of dacing enemies/ opponents oen at a time and trying to dominate that scenario by browbeating them and being over-bearing and trying to come across as a strong decisive leader.


That is why a 3-way debate is needed as it is the only way that the real Gordon Brown will be revealed for what he is an indecisive, rudderless out of his depth political schemer

44#

"It is easy to see the number of vacuous Tories that pollute this blog, one can only presume it is a ruse by Head Office to "get the message out" further about the invincible, unassailable Conservative lead.

Brown has conviction and experience in government and is an experienced parliamentarian of some 30 years. He used to make mincemeat out of a succession of Tory Shadow Chancellors across the floor of the Commons and holds his own during often difficult times as Prime Minister.

He has more substance and experience than both Cameron and Clegg put together. Asked to debate on issues Brown would wipe the floor with both, such is his ability to debate and make lucid points and arguments. However I fear it won't matter, such is the increasingly personal, manicured, bite sized vacuousity of our politics. People will no doubt talk about how awkward he is and how gruff he looks, which to me is just packaged up insidiously in a way that masks the fact that vast amounts of people don't want their country run by a Scotsman.

A debate I am sure would be a terrible error by the Tories, it would have the opposite effect they are looking for. It would chip away at their lead. It would bring Brown closer to Cameron, and it would inevitably show people that Cameron is not that great an alternative to Brown. The more debates there are, the more disastrous this will be for the Tories. They may even lose this seemingly already decided election yet. Labout strategists everywhere must be licking their lips at this Tory strategy faux pas. It has given Brown and Labour oxygen, and it will give them a chance to nail the Lib Dems shallowness, which they will do."


Charlie.... Charlie... calling Charlie Whelan.... another one of your rebuttal pups has slipped the leash again! Didnt that nice man with the unmarked white van tell you not to give them any water them after dark???

64#

At last, common sense prevails. ++applause++

This all assumes that Gordon Brown will still be leader of New labour (or whatever it calls itself these days) when there is a general election.

69 operation_overlord

Good post.

Eh? Cameron has been challenging Brown to a public debate for a long time... why are you presenting this as if it's a Brown idea, Nick? I know why Brown would present it that way, but surely you have done your research and know better?

The debates in this scenario would be easy for Gordon to think aqbout - no one can argue with the worlds troubles and their solutions are limited!

Give them all something to discuss and invite Alex Salmond! Now there would be a dbate worth watching!

Television debates is what the public deserve.

Not stage managed peacock-strutting sessions.

Real debates about real issues.

The issues that should be debated:

1. How would the party leaders get us out of the financial hole we are in now?
2. What are the fundamental value systems that the parties believe in regarding what Government could and should do, when they should do them and for whose benefit they should do them?
3. What are the fundamental values of the Parties with regard to international relations, namely do they believe in economic serfdom for nations, economic or even administrative imperialism and do they believe in a 'ruling class' born to rule?
4. Do the Parties believe that sporting achievement is a qualification for other professions, namely science, medicine etc. If so, why are they surprised that our country is in the mess that it is in?
5. What do the Parties believe should be particularly valued? Invention and discovery?? Spying and stealing?? Deceiving and betraying?? Selling good products?? Selling bad products?? Nurturing the next generation?? Tending to the sick?? How is that mirrored in their values for assigning material wealth and status within society??
6. Do the Party's believe that politics is about verbal abuse and petty points scoring or is it about behaving like adults, setting an example and generally being people worthy of respect??
7. What do their answers to point six tell us about the necessary changes to public life??

There are many who wonder what I believe in.

It is perhaps time to say.

I believe, above all else, in holding politicians to account to ensure that the choices available to this country are the result of three or more parties presenting their best colours honestly, convincingly and with probity commensurate with being worthy of public office.

In 1997 I saw an election campaign based on vacuity and hot air and saw one exhausted party, one party which had sold out and one which was still at school. In 2001 I saw one party, with much to offer, threatening to commit suicide and another being led by an authoritarian dictator. In 2002, UK politics plumbed its worst depths by the farcical proceedings which led to this country going to war against Iraq. Any authority in the world based on superior behaviour, standing or stature disappeared at that time. Except perhaps in the eyes of the Republican Right whose views, I suspect, will decline in importance as the decades pass........

I decided that making these parties get their acts together was worthwhile as I could see the end of the 1945 'grand vision' coming by 2012 or at the latest 2024. That was the basis of a communication to the Conservative Party in late 2001......nothing more, nothing less. I hope I helped them in some small way....

I do not claim to have done that much. I have just continued to focus on issues not people and examined political rhetoric for what it is. Rhetoric. I do not have a crystal ball, nor do I have the ability to detect lying with 100% accuracy.

But what I do not want to see is a 'walkover' for one party claiming 'the next great vision' without a proper adult debate, in front of the people, so that they, not media moguls, can make their choice.

Media moguls will play their games, as they do.

But they do not pay the politicians.

The people do.

And all I have sought to do is to drive that home, once and for all, to the media moguls and the politicians who are funded by taxpayers.

I'd appreciate it if all who are so tribal that they couldn't see that from the outset would take a deep breath and understand that I don't do partisanship in matters of the highest public service, because all partisanship brought me as a boy growing up was human misery.

And if you expect me to support a way of existing which condemns me to lifetime misery, then you need to look at yourselves in the mirror.

Ladies and gentlemen.

Brown does not have a decisive bone in his body.

This is part of his usual modus operandi -- he refuses to made a decision, so floats some ideas to see public reaction, changes his mind and gets back on the fence.

He never gets off the fence, he just dithers until the fence collapses and then continues from where ever he has happened to land...

44. OMG Eden Rooms. What England are YOU living in? Head in the sand - perhaps on a sunny Devon or Cornwall beach? You are either in denial yourself - like your master brown - and definitely niave to write such rubbish.

OK, you might worship your master brown, but wait and see what the public thinks when they vote. You are so niave you can't even see it until it happens.

52#

"Dave (for he has asked us to call him that) will have to cut the angry young man routine"

You reckon?

I reckon he hasnt got anywhere near angry enough. Angry enough to consider inserting the mace somewhere on Gordon where it was not designed to go.

if the electorate are angry then a true leader who is in touch would be able to channel it and express it, communicate it. IMVHO, thats the kind of leader we need. And none of the current 3 meet the requirement.

Pleasant enough chap though I'm sure he is, I have not seen Cameron get that angry yet. No REAL passion or fire. I dont believe I'm going to say this, but even Neil Kinnock managed that. Maggie kicked his butt all over the commons intellectually and politically, but at least he sounded like he really meant it.