Should Gordon Brown succeed Blair as Prime Minister?

Question

As Chancellor, Gordon Brown has supported Tony Blair from the beginning.

He is the one who has acrued the financial resources that has funded the ongoing debacle in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has signed the cheques.

By the standards of Nuremburg and the Geneva Convention, he is complicit in the War Crimes of which Blair is guilty [as many of Blair`s cabinet past and present are].

For which Blair is deemed to be guilty.

Answer 1

The biggest problem I have with the whole argument of Blair going and Brown taking over, is that it completely fails to take account of the wishes of the electorate. If Blair wants to stop being PM then he should call a general election (and a simultaneous Labour leadership election) and let the voters decide who the next PM shall be. But it is in keeping with the aloof and ignorant presidential style of how the government has mangled our "democratic" political processes.

Answer 2

We still have 'Cabinet Government', which means that any decisions taken, are Government decisions, and not, therefore, the responsibility of any one politician. It is not within the remit of a sitting Prime Minister to appoint a successor. When you say that Gordon Brown has supported Tony Blair, you are personalising government business as though the rest of the Cabinet/ Politicians are not involved. TECHNICALLY, THEY ARE GOVERNMENT DECISIONS.

Gordon Brown of course, doesn't actually sign cheques, and he would have been unable to prevent any expenditure relating to the Iraqi war from going ahead, because, it had been approved by the Government. If he had such power, and using your criteria, he could be regarded as responsible for everything the Government does, which involves expenditure. I am certainly not defending Gordon Brown (please search on my answer to this question ARROGANT PREVARICATOR?) because there are plenty of excellent reasons for criticising his Chancellorship in those areas where he does have responsibility, control, and/or influence, without accusing him of war crimes.

I really do not think that it is a good idea to undermine the British Government in the way you propose, angry as you obviously are, because, particularly in war situations, it is important for citizens not to show open dissent and risk undermining the efforts of the armed forces. Widespread open dissent, is unpatriotic, and can lead to anarchy.

Answer 3

If Blair goes , we should have a General Election as this government have been an almost complete disaster , and Gordon Brown should perhaps live in Scotland , or more likely he will move with his family to Cape Cod , New England , where he spends most of his leisure time. He can give lectures to Americans for exhorbitant fees.

Answer 4

No, Gordon Brown is too old and out of touch with the man on the street. He may have accrued this money for the war which not many voters wanted, but at what cost the NHS is in crisis because of underfunding, our education system is the same and where the heck are all the dentists, not on the NHS. Plus and this is my main point look at the prices of food, petrol, clothes etc.... that the man on the street has to pay for on their pittance that hasn't been taken in taxes for the blessed war that no-one wanted and to top it all we have been taxed and taxed again on the same money, Mrs Thatcher may have been a greedy penny pinching, job closing, milk snatching schemer but she can't hold her own to Mr Brown. No I am not a fan.

Answer 5

No. The only reason it is being done in this manner is so the Labour supporters get used to him as leader so at the next election they will vote labour. Tactical I say. Why does he not take over at a new election because they know that he wont win and Labour will lose. If they are not confident to do that then he isnt the right man for the job.

Answer 6

Surely the leader is supposed to be elected by the party,not handed down like the captaincy of a football team.Having said that no one involved with Blair should ever be allowed to run the country again.

Answer 7

Don't know where you're coming from from pal, but it ain't the planet earth.

The Nuremburg war trials were for people you can't even imagine in your worst dreams, fortunately for you. Go learn your history, get off your little religeous or political bicycle and get a life.

I take it your not a Marsh Arab or a Kurd, they may disagree with your view point. I do.

Answer 8

No ! As he also seems to be the one organising Tony Blairs downfall at the moment,can we, the public, trust him? I think not. He's not doing it for the love of the country,,just to feather his own nest!!! That said,Blair does need to go,but will things be any better,if and when whoever takes over? No!!!!

Answer 9

NO! NO! NO!

Leaders are born not made. Brown is NOT a leader - a great number 2 or 3 but never a number one.

Read the recent 'insider' histories - he's definitely NOT the man for the job. That's why B.Liar is making a fool of himself over-staying his term of office - giving the PLP a chance to mount a serious Anti-Brown candidate.

The man for the job is DAVID MILLIBAND

Answer 10

Brown professes to not like what the Bliar fellow has done for the last god knows how many years - because he hasn't got the two things needed to come out and be his own man - 'BALLS'
He is just a shifty backstabber - fairly typical of his genre.