Best to represent Britain?

[Walsingham]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8078294.stm

 

I know Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister, and we are supposed to send the office, not the man, but come on! I think the Queen should go _instead_ of the one-eyed shambles.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Walsingham

[Moose]

 

^ Actual footage recorded at a live conference.

 

The man has to go.

[Gorth]

Where is the John Cleese option?

 

I wonder if it is telling that I couldn't even remember the guys name?

 

While the queen may have been around during WWII, she can't really be seen mingling with commoners, can she? Standards to maintain and all that.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Of course the Queen should go. This is just the kind of ceremonial thing we employ her for. Gordon Brown should get on with his important job of generally lying still or going away.

[Walsingham]

Of course the Queen should go. This is just the kind of ceremonial thing we employ her for. Gordon Brown should get on with his important job of generally lying still or going away.

 

Perhaps the best use of him would be as a living statue. I'd be up for cementing him in parliament square for urchins to pee on.

[Meshugger]

Ceremonial occasions, such as these, should be represented by the royalty. What's more British than the royal house?

[Humodour]

I'm a strange breed of Monarchist Republican. If I were a Brit, I'd be quite proud of the monarchy, but as an Australian I feel it's improper (not that a directly elected executive would be any better - which is what we'll probably get at the next referendum... why can't we preserve the status quo and just shift the GG's powers around a bit like, say, an independent, ceremonial executive indirectly elected by parliament, but I digress).

 

So yeah, the Queen.

[Walsingham]

I don't have many illusions about the nobility of the royal house. I'd just take my chances with some randomly born yahoo, who MAY potentially be quite nice, than a politician who is guaranteed (by the system) to be a liar and bastard.

[Gorgon]

Speaking of which, they are making us vote on whether to make succession determined by the first born, or by sex, that is a boy doesn't automatically trump a girl.

 

I dunno, If we are going to have a ludicrously outmoded job like "King of Denmark", the concept of equality seems entirely out of place. Start with making the king an elected official, then we'll talk gender discrimination.

[Walsingham]

Speaking of which, they are making us vote on whether to make succession determined by the first born, or by sex, that is a boy doesn't automatically trump a girl.

 

I dunno, If we are going to have a ludicrously outmoded job like "King of Denmark", the concept of equality seems entirely out of place. Start with making the king an elected official, then we'll talk gender discrimination.

 

You really aren't listening. I'm saying that our next monarch may be a thicky with bad hair and a bad sense of humour regarding nazis, but he's better than anyone the public would ever choose.

[Rosbjerg]

The Queen.. that would be awesome - we could have a Monarch smackdown, where the different Eurpean royalties fight for their countries over seats in the parlement..

[Gorgon]

How about a national lottery, to determine succession that is. I mean I'm a Republican at heart, but the monarchy seems to be good for business, dragging in the tourists and profiling industry and whatnot.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Gorgon

[Darth InSidious]

Where is the John Cleese option?

 

I wonder if it is telling that I couldn't even remember the guys name?

Only about him. Brown is about as memorable as a shoe-full of wet sand... and about as interesting.

While the queen may have been around during WWII, she can't really be seen mingling with commoners, can she? Standards to maintain and all that.

You... really don't understand the Queen.

 

On-topic, hells yes the Queen should go.I'd rather be represented by an unelected Hanoverian bred for the job than by an unelected Scots wanker who has been particularly to blame for the current economic ****storm, and is one of the most repugnant pieces of **** in British politics... But then, he's on the front benches, so that isn't much of a surprise, all told.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I saw both. Brown is Prime Minister but personally I think Harriet Jones would do a better job of it.

 

[Walsingham]

I'm starting to think we are going to have to get together as people and demand a ****ing general election. Jacqui Smith and Darling are gone. That's two of the top four. I want rid of this government, because if nothing else I don't want to be governed by people too stupid to vote out Brown as PM. If they'd done that last month they might have saved their jobs. As it is, they are ALL going to be chucked out when they finally HAVE to call an election.

 

Back on topic, this is another example of Brownitis. He rings up to check how Susan Boyle is doing, but doesn't give a **** about D-Day missing the Royals? They're our ****ing heads of state. 10,000 casualties on that one day on our side alone. He didn't give a **** about the ghurkas either, and he rings up to check on Susan Boyle. Rrrrrrraaargh!

[Darth InSidious]

I'm starting to think we are going to have to get together as people and demand a ****ing general election. Jacqui Smith and Darling are gone. That's two of the top four. I want rid of this government, because if nothing else I don't want to be governed by people too stupid to vote out Brown as PM. If they'd done that last month they might have saved their jobs. As it is, they are ALL going to be chucked out when they finally HAVE to call an election.

 

Back on topic, this is another example of Brownitis. He rings up to check how Susan Boyle is doing, but doesn't give a **** about D-Day missing the Royals? They're our ****ing heads of state. 10,000 casualties on that one day on our side alone. He didn't give a **** about the ghurkas either, and he rings up to check on Susan Boyle. Rrrrrrraaargh!

Now you know whyI want all 600-odd of them burnt at the stake for treason.

[Killian Kalthorne]

It could be worse, Walsh. You could have had Bush, and not the good kind, for 8 very long years.

[Tigranes]

What exactly is so terrible about Gordon Brown? I've been woefully ignorant of the British political situation since the Blair days.

[Humodour]

What exactly is so terrible about Gordon Brown? I've been woefully ignorant of the British political situation since the Blair days.

 

Jacqui Smith is a moron and he likes her so I'm not fond of him. Aside from that he just seems a bit incompetent and overly politically correct. He's certainly no economist.

 

That, and his party has been in power for, like, 14 years. Certainly long after the time stagnation kicks in. It's just unfortunate that this probably means at least 6 years of the Tories in power.

 

Edit: Blair was cool.

Edited June 3, 2009 by Krezack

[SteveThaiBinh]

What exactly is so terrible about Gordon Brown?

So many things to choose from, I'll just pick two:

 

Firstly, he doesn't have a direct mandate because he hasn't faced a general election as party leader. The British constitution allows this, but the public doesn't like it and doesn't tolerate it for long.

 

Secondly, a lot of the things that need doing in Britain involve undoing things that he did when he was Chancellor (Finance Minister). Everyone knows that, but he can't admit it, so nothing gets done.

[Monte Carlo]

We should be represented by our head of state, to wit Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

 

Brown is merely first among equals in the House of Commons (albeit that the only people who have ever voted for him are the people of his Scottish constituency, making his mandate even more negligible). He is not, nor is any Prime Minister, our head of state. Tony Blair wanted to be, and behaved like, a president but even he showed due respect for the Monarch. Unlike Brown, who is a disgrace.

 

Cheers

MC

[Walsingham]

Brown's real failure is that he isn't a politician. Politics is about people, and Brown is a people person to the same extent that I'm a lichen. Politics is also about risk, and having a vision for which you are prepared to take risks, because governmental decision making is often about things you can't assemble hard data for. The ghurka issue would be the most obvious to my mind. If you don't know the ghurkas they hold a special place in the hearts of the British public. Despite being a mercenary regiment from Nepal they have consistently served with total dedication, winning boatloads of medals. they are tough, disciplined, and laugh sinisterly at suffering. They are everything we want to be and usually aren't. A question arose recently over whether ghurkas who had served should be permitted to come to this country with their families. The government declined. The issue was taken up by celebrity campaigners, and became a public focus. At this point, Blair would have flipped and let them in, making a great show of sucking up, and he'd scorn him for being transparently populist.

 

I feel the ghurkas is a clear example of his failures because Brown showed no apparent interest, and no understanding of the fundamentally sentimental nature of public affection. Long story short he finally caved in to pressure, but long after any political benefit could be had from the decision. It demonstrates his lack of vision because he focussed entirely on the Treasury's projected cost of letting the wee buggers in, and not at all on the benefit to be had from thousands of worthy types coming into the country. Nor did it send remotely correct signals regarding the gratitude of HM government.

 

These same failures are evident in his handling of the bankers crisis. The government was obviously required to step in, as they did. But it should have been done instantly as soon as one answered the question 'who can possibly intervene?' He should then have sicced the hounds on people and show trialled them to make people feel better. Instead he acted slowly, and then allowed the bankers most at fault to be given huge fat cash bonuses. FAIL. Similarly he has acted lamentably over the MPs expenses. In fact he has actually left the chamber during debates, as if he can hide. Now, I accept that the figures involved are derisory compared with the sums MPs routinely handle. But the fact is that they are far from derisory compared with the average wage. Once again he acts, but slowly and truculently, like a boy handing back stolen sweets.