Time for our unelected prime minister to step down

[Douggy B 0]

No 10 apology over 'slur' e-mails

 

 

Downing Street has apologised for e-mails sent by one of Gordon Brown's senior officials which reportedly discussed smearing top Conservatives.

 

The Daily Telegraph says the e-mails found their way to Paul Staines, writer of the Guido Fawkes blog, who described them as "obscene".

 

The offending e-mails were sent by Damian McBride, the prime minister's ex-political press officer.

 

A Number 10 spokesman said the messages were "juvenile and inappropriate".

 

The Tories said it was "absurd" that advisers were "plotting smear campaigns rather than focusing on how to help people affected by the downturn".

 

Their author was thought to have sent them to former government spin doctor Derek Draper, who runs a pro-Labour blog.

 

He branded the idea of an orchestrated Downing Street campaign as "ridiculous".

 

Mr Draper said he had been sent the comments after canvassing Labour supporters about the prospect of setting up another blog to combat "right wing tittle-tattle" posted on the web.

 

However, former home secretary Charles Clarke said Mr McBride's actions had brought "shame" to the Labour party and that he should be sacked.

 

Shouldn't Downing Street officials be concentrating on the challenges we face as a nation?

Chris Grayling, shadow home secretary

 

The Daily Telegraph said the e-mails included unfounded allegations about Conservative leader David Cameron and shadow chancellor George Osborne.

 

"The e-mails are intended to be anonymous smears, they are obscene in cases, and would impossible for a newspaper to publish. They're libellous and they're untrue," Mr Staines told the BBC.

 

"In the e-mails, Damian McBride admits to using 'poetic licence'. He's a civil servant, he's exempt from the restrictions on being impartial and political, he's not exempt from telling the truth."

 

It is understood Mr McBride had to apologise to colleagues.

 

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling described the episode as "ludicrous".

 

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We are in the middle of the biggest economic crisis for half a century. Is this really the best Downing Street can do?

 

"Shouldn't they surely be thinking about national issues, shouldn't Downing Street officials be concentrating on the challenges we face as a nation?

 

"To think that they are sitting in Downing Street putting together ludicrous stories about Conservative MPs that they can put round as tittle-tattle just beggars belief."

 

'Chaotic'

 

Mr McBride, a special adviser in Downing Street, was removed from his job dealing with the media on a day-to-day basis following the resignation of former Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly in September 2008.

 

He stayed on in Number 10, and was given responsibility for strategy and planning.

 

A spokesman for Downing Street said: "Neither the prime minister nor anybody else in Downing Street, except the author, knew anything about any of these private emails.

 

"The author of these emails has apologised for their juvenile and inappropriate nature and for the embarrassment caused.

 

"All staff will be reminded of the appropriate use of Number 10 resources."

 

 

Its clear to anybody with an ounce of sense that Gordon Brown has lost control of his party, like he lost control of the economy.

 

Time for Gordon to go and labour to call an election.

Edited April 12, 2009 by Danny B

[LeazesMag 0]

I don't think, regardless of this, that it's right for an unelected PM to take over halfway through the term of someone else.

 

Brown is fucked, but Cameron isn't very impressive either. We have 2 parties, and they are both shite.

[Douggy B 0]

I don't think, regardless of this, that it's right for an unelected PM to take over halfway through the term of someone else.

 

Brown is fucked, but Cameron isn't very impressive either. We have 2 parties, and they are both shite.

 

Give me "not very impressive" over fucked any day of the week.

 

The government has zero credibility now.

[Fop 1]

"The e-mails are intended to be anonymous smears, they are obscene in cases, and would impossible for a newspaper to publish. They're libellous and they're untrue," Mr Staines told the BBC.

 

They've got a property conveyubermancer on the case already.

[ewerk 31195]

Danny, you seem surprised that this sort of thing is going on?

Edited April 12, 2009 by ewerk

[Douggy B 0]

Danny, you seem surprised that this sort of thing is going on?

 

I am surprised he hasnt stepped down after what has happened.

 

We will take a long time to recover from this Labour government.

[The Fish 10963]

None of the parties inspire anything in me, other than contempt and apathy.. if you can "inspire" apathy.

 

I'm amazed that anyone is surprised that there are slurs, even more so that people think a change in the ruling party will improve things.

 

We'll take a long time to recover from this "democracy".

[Fop 1]

Danny, you seem surprised that this sort of thing is going on?

 

I am surprised he hasnt stepped down after what has happened.

 

We will take a long time to recover from this Labour government.

 

Brown knew full well what was going on (in essence if not detail) it was the guys job to do this (well not actually this as he got caught and it wasn't likely to work well anyway).

 

Brown will cling to power till the end, he's already had to undermine half his own party to make sure no one else looks like a replacement (that someone like Miliband or Smith even might, says it all about Nu-New-Labour really).

[Fop 1]

None of the parties inspire anything in me, other than contempt and apathy.. if you can "inspire" apathy.

 

I'm amazed that anyone is surprised that there are slurs, even more so that people think a change in the ruling party will improve things.

 

We'll take a long time to recover from this "democracy".

 

 

Politicians are politicians - most of them are in it for money (effective pay for a clued up MP can easily equal £300,000+ a year ("take home" if you include their incredible lucrative pension - which is tax free of course) currently without necessarily even having to be at even junior ministerial level - then you have private interests on top) and in Prescott's case the cars and buffet table.

 

But that's why you have to have change (it really doesn't matter who), otherwise you get the inherent corruption; that became so obvious in the Major years and has utterly riddled Blair and Brown's time in power.

 

A different government won't change the species, but it will shuffle things up and mean it takes a while for them to get their feet quite so far under the table and their snouts quite so far into the trough.

 

 

 

Any time you see a British Government get more then two consecutive terms in power it is past time for someone else.

Edited April 13, 2009 by Fop

[PaddockLad 17643]

Danny, you seem surprised that this sort of thing is going on?

 

I am surprised he hasnt stepped down after what has happened.We will take a long time to recover from this Labour government.

 

Really?......."never apologise, never resign" being the mantra of the modern political classes in the 21st century.....

 

This is piss poor playground stuff played out over an otherwise dull (news wise) bank holiday weekend. The tories smell blood over something these un-elected pricks (the government advisers) spend most of their time doing ie finding ways to snipe at the opposistion.Don't for a minute think that the tories dont employ their own spinners to do the same job. McBride works in number 10, but is Brown really going to see every email the fool sends?

 

Blair and that fuckin tosspot Campbell never apologised for the Iraq war or the death of Dr Scott so to expect an apology and a resignation from the Prime Minister for a bit of name calling that he knew nothing about is like asking for the death sentence for dropping litter.

 

Politicians and thier un-elected lackeys in this country are almost all to a man/woman self serving careerist fuckers with more interest in feathering their own nests than serving those who elect them.They're not alone in this,but they are better behaved and less corruptthan most,even in Europe......Silvio Burlisconi or Gordon Brown anyone?

[LeazesMag 0]

None of the parties inspire anything in me, other than contempt and apathy.. if you can "inspire" apathy.

 

I'm amazed that anyone is surprised that there are slurs, even more so that people think a change in the ruling party will improve things.

 

We'll take a long time to recover from this "democracy".

 

 

Politicians are politicians - most of them are in it for money (effective pay for a clued up MP can easily equal £300,000+ a year ("take home" if you include their incredible lucrative pension - which is tax free of course) currently without necessarily even having to be at even junior ministerial level - then you have private interests on top) and in Prescott's case the cars and buffet table.

 

But that's why you have to have change (it really doesn't matter who), otherwise you get the inherent corruption; that became so obvious in the Major years and has utterly riddled Blair and Brown's time in power.

 

A different government won't change the species, but it will shuffle things up and mean it takes a while for them to get their feet quite so far under the table and their snouts quite so far into the trough.

 

 

 

Any time you see a British Government get more then two consecutive terms in power it is past time for someone else.

 

= complacency. Both Blair and Thatcher have shown it.

[Fop 1]

None of the parties inspire anything in me, other than contempt and apathy.. if you can "inspire" apathy.

 

I'm amazed that anyone is surprised that there are slurs, even more so that people think a change in the ruling party will improve things.

 

We'll take a long time to recover from this "democracy".

 

 

Politicians are politicians - most of them are in it for money (effective pay for a clued up MP can easily equal £300,000+ a year ("take home" if you include their incredible lucrative pension - which is tax free of course) currently without necessarily even having to be at even junior ministerial level - then you have private interests on top) and in Prescott's case the cars and buffet table.

 

But that's why you have to have change (it really doesn't matter who), otherwise you get the inherent corruption; that became so obvious in the Major years and has utterly riddled Blair and Brown's time in power.

 

A different government won't change the species, but it will shuffle things up and mean it takes a while for them to get their feet quite so far under the table and their snouts quite so far into the trough.

 

 

 

Any time you see a British Government get more then two consecutive terms in power it is past time for someone else.

 

= complacency. Both Blair and Thatcher have shown it.

 

[Fop 1]

You know you're in trouble when John Prescott thinks you should go.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7997339.stm

[Kid Dynamite 7169]

I read today that the money the government used to bail out the banks could have been used to give the countries 1million + NHS Staff a 5% payrise

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ten times over!!!!!!

[Douggy B 0]

I read today that the money the government used to bail out the banks could have been used to give the countries 1million + NHS Staff a 5% payrise

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ten times over!!!!!!

 

I really dont get posts like this. So what? As soon as nurses start generating wealth, give me a shout yeah?

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3964]

I read today that the money the government used to bail out the banks could have been used to give the countries 1million + NHS Staff a 5% payrise

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ten times over!!!!!!

 

I really dont get posts like this. So what? As soon as nurses start generating wealth, give me a shout yeah?

 

Everybody who spends money generates wealth. Also what kind of wealth do you mean and wealth for whom?

[Fop 1]

I really dont get posts like this. So what? As soon as nurses start generating wealth, give me a shout yeah?

 

The biggest lie this world as ever seen is that the City generates wealth, at least in a general context.

 

You've just got to look at the world wealth distribution to see that, never mind 3rd world vs the West, just look at the percentage of the worlds population that controls the vast majority of the worlds "wealth".

 

West or 3rd world, 98% of people are slaves working in the mill for the other 2%, just their living conditions vary a bit.

[Rob W 0]

"I don't think, regardless of this, that it's right for an unelected PM to take over halfway through the term of someone else."

 

until mid Victorian times a new Prime Minister meant a new general election - then the politicians decided that since we elected individual MP's and NOT a Prime Minister (or President) then we could "safely" leave it up to them to approve a new Govt.

[ewerk 31195]

"I don't think, regardless of this, that it's right for an unelected PM to take over halfway through the term of someone else."

 

until mid Victorian times a new Prime Minister meant a new general election - then the politicians decided that since we elected individual MP's and NOT a Prime Minister (or President) then we could "safely" leave it up to them to approve a new Govt.

 

The Conservatives used the line 'A vote for Blair is a vote for Brown', the world and his wife knew this would happen. If the electorate had a problem with it then they shouldn't have elected a Labour government, no point in complaining about it now.

[Fop 1]

"I don't think, regardless of this, that it's right for an unelected PM to take over halfway through the term of someone else."

 

until mid Victorian times a new Prime Minister meant a new general election - then the politicians decided that since we elected individual MP's and NOT a Prime Minister (or President) then we could "safely" leave it up to them to approve a new Govt.

 

The Conservatives used the line 'A vote for Blair is a vote for Brown', the world and his wife knew this would happen. If the electorate had a problem with it then they shouldn't have elected a Labour government, no point in complaining about it now.

 

 

In fairness, at the time Fop doesn't think most people understood how terrible a chancellor Brown had been, some did, but not many.

 

The fact the Brown clearly was going to hold a general election until as the last moment he realise he might well lose it and panicked and then cancelled it and pretended it never happened makes it even worse, he even knows he shouldn't be there.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Fop

[ewerk 31195]

In fairness, at the time Fop doesn't think most people understood how terrible a chancellor Brown had been, some did, but not many.

 

The fact the Brown clearly was going to hold a general election until as the last moment he realise he might well lose it and panicked and then cancelled it and pretended it never happened makes it even worse, he even knows he shouldn't be there.

 

The reason that we shouldn't have a general election for a change in Prime Minister is that he does not have presidential powers, he is primus inter pares within the cabinet of the ruling party that was elected. That of course is all in theory, as we saw with Blair, the reality can be quite different.

[Fop 1]

In fairness, at the time Fop doesn't think most people understood how terrible a chancellor Brown had been, some did, but not many.

 

The fact the Brown clearly was going to hold a general election until as the last moment he realise he might well lose it and panicked and then cancelled it and pretended it never happened makes it even worse, he even knows he shouldn't be there.

 

The reason that we shouldn't have a general election for a change in Prime Minister is that he does not have presidential powers, he is primus inter pares within the cabinet of the ruling party that was elected. That of course is all in theory, as we saw with Blair, the reality can be quite different.

 

 

Aye, and it's quite obvious why he won't call one (if he thought he'd win he would), but equally that doesn't make it "right".

[ewerk 31195]

In fairness, at the time Fop doesn't think most people understood how terrible a chancellor Brown had been, some did, but not many.

 

The fact the Brown clearly was going to hold a general election until as the last moment he realise he might well lose it and panicked and then cancelled it and pretended it never happened makes it even worse, he even knows he shouldn't be there.

 

The reason that we shouldn't have a general election for a change in Prime Minister is that he does not have presidential powers, he is primus inter pares within the cabinet of the ruling party that was elected. That of course is all in theory, as we saw with Blair, the reality can be quite different.

 

 

Aye, and it's quite obvious why he won't call one (if he thought he'd win he would), but equally that doesn't make it "right".

 

But that has always been the government's prerogative, you can't blame Brown for that.

[Fop 1]

In fairness, at the time Fop doesn't think most people understood how terrible a chancellor Brown had been, some did, but not many.

 

The fact the Brown clearly was going to hold a general election until as the last moment he realise he might well lose it and panicked and then cancelled it and pretended it never happened makes it even worse, he even knows he shouldn't be there.

 

The reason that we shouldn't have a general election for a change in Prime Minister is that he does not have presidential powers, he is primus inter pares within the cabinet of the ruling party that was elected. That of course is all in theory, as we saw with Blair, the reality can be quite different.

 

 

Aye, and it's quite obvious why he won't call one (if he thought he'd win he would), but equally that doesn't make it "right".

 

But that has always been the government's prerogative, you can't blame Brown for that.

 

No you can't really blame him for being what he is, but that doesn't mean you have to (or should) like it.

[Happy Face 29]

The first cracks in Gordon Brown's cabinet appear today as a senior minister attacks his government's "lamentable" failure to communicate and warns of "dire" consequences if it continues to blunder on policy and misread the mood of the British people.

 

After a disastrous week in which the prime minister suffered his first Commons defeat and was forced into a humiliating retreat over MPs' expenses, the communities secretary, Hazel Blears, openly criticises the government's handling of the Gurkhas issue and says that voters no longer believe many of its big policy announcements.

 

In a clear reference to the prime minister, who has been ridiculed for his appearance on YouTube, the strongly Blairite cabinet minister says such use of "new media" by politicians is far less effective than old-fashioned campaigning. "YouTube if you want to," she says in an article in today's Observer. "But it is no substitute for knocking on doors or setting up a stall in the town centre."

 

However, it is her savage criticism of the government's failure to connect with the instincts of the British people that is most devastating. On the issue of the Gurkhas' rights to settle in this country, she says the government put itself "on the wrong side of the British sense of fair play, and no party can stay there for long without dire consequences".

 

While she says Brown will lead the party into the next election and that Labour has the "right policies", she argues that the government has to appear more "human". "Labour ministers have a collective responsibility for the government's lamentable failure to get our message across," she says.

 

"All too often we announce new strategies, five-year plans, or launch new documents, often with colossal price tags attached, which are received by the public with incredulity at best and at worst hostility. Whatever the problems of the recession, the answer is not more government documents or big speeches."

 

Most ministers, and a majority of Labour MPs, are playing down suggestions that Brown could face a leadership challenge, or be asked by a cabinet delegation to step down, if Labour suffers a mauling in local and European elections on 4 June. Blears's remarks nonetheless reflect growing disquiet at all levels of the party.

 

Up to now, cabinet ministers have remained studiously loyal to Brown, despite a terrible month that saw the sacking of his political adviser Damian McBride for trying to smear leading Tories, widespread criticism of the budget and chaos over Gurkhas' rights and MPs' expenses.

 

Now the Blears intervention suggests that discipline is breaking down. A senior party figure said Blears was "making her move" and believed she could lead the party. "She thinks she is the one. She is part of a very active rightwing faction within the party which has a lot support among women MPs and in the student wing. She knows precisely what she is doing. You have to say she is brave."

 

The former education secretary, Ruth Kelly, writing for the Observer's website, joins Blears in demanding a greater focus on domestic reform, in a further sign of anxiety and unrest among Blairites.

 

Kelly stood down from the cabinet last year amid rumours that was she was unhappy with Brown's leadership, but has done nothing to criticise the prime minister since. Now she says: "Somehow in the immediacy of the economic crisis, New Labour's strong message on public service reform, on devolution and on climate change has got lost in the fog."

 

Last night Blears, whose comments will infuriate No 10, hastily put out a statement that she had not intended them as a criticism of Brown.

 

"I want to make it clear that the Prime Minster enjoys my 100% support. Any suggestion that I intended what I wrote as criticism of him or his leadership is completely wrong," she said.

 

With Brown's problems piling up, pressure is also growing on ministers to drop controversial plans to part-privatise Royal Mail, which are opposed by more than 120 Labour MPs. The legislation is due to return the Commons days after the European and council polls.

 

Government sources denied that ministers were about to pull the plug on the reforms, which they insisted were essential. But Labour MP John Grogan, a leading member of the leftwing Compass Group, said: "It would be a kamikaze move for Brown to reintroduce it to the Commons in June."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/ma...own-hazelblears