Oh come on do we really need someone like Gordon Brown as our next Prime Minister,after all the blunders he has made as the Chancellor,would that be an acceptable qualification for the job,come to think of it who in the Labour Party would be best for the leadership post
2006-09-24 23:47:03 · 26 answers · asked by mentor 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
No... we need a prime minister who will put this country back on its feet, That will never happen while Labour are in power thats for sure. I think Cameron would be a better bet, but when was the last time anyone trusted a politician? I think Churchill was the last decent PM, not just because of the war either.
Mr Brown will follow in B.liar's footsteps and continue to bleed the country dry, If i had the money i would emigrate to New Zealand or Canada... as far away as possible from the sad excuse for a government.
2006-09-25 03:18:57 · answer #1 · answered by vampire_o3 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No we don`t want him as I have said on here before ,he has literally jumped into Blairs shoes,,,I think they should sort it out for the public to choose after all it is our country,
I can`t see anyone at the moment who could do the job ,we desperately need some new blood ,give a younger man a chance,I am not being bias as I am a pensioner and it`s very unlikely I`ll gain anything .
2006-09-25 07:00:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would rather have John Prescott ;-}
Talking of which, how embarrassing is it for the Labour party to have a Deputy Prime Minister who is not even in the running - nice going Tony. This buffoon will not even be holding a front-bench seat in six months.
2006-09-25 06:59:09 · answer #3 · answered by GoogleRules 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I have just watched his speech at the Labour party conference and he seems like a very experience politician to me and he has handled the economy well. If you are a tory supporter getting your hopes up, don't bother - your party won't even get in at the next election.
2006-09-25 09:55:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Blunders aside - you've forgotten the most important point...
HE'S SCOTTISH!
How is it we can consider appointing a Scot to lead England, yet the English get spat on every time they cross the border into Scotland?? Would they appoint an Englishman as their leader? I think not!
2006-09-25 06:52:51 · answer #5 · answered by gromitski 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i don't really care who is the next leader of the labour party as i don't think they will win the next general election anyway, but, my only point would be that Gordon brown is Scottish, if he wants to be leader of the labour party, it should be the Scottish labour party, and he should be working for the Scottish assembly...the Scots wanted devolvement for years, how come we potentially have a Scot being in charge of the day to day running of England, and the day to day running of his own country being largely out of his hands...seems **** about face to me.
2006-09-25 06:58:01 · answer #6 · answered by Steve F 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think tony Blair should remain. he's done the only sensible thing and that is back America. if he backed anyone else, they would only scoff and throw it back in his face. don't think he had much options to work with. as for anyone else in the current labour party - dear god no!
it's a shocking state of affairs when i want to vote for the monster raving loony party! shame they've disbanded really ........ x
2006-09-25 07:15:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
no one in the labour party is up to the job a trained chimpanzee would do a great job compared to this lot
2006-09-25 06:51:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No thanks. He sold all our gold reserves a while back to pay benefits out to single mothers. The Lab. government wants the population increased at the expense of the working people.
2006-09-25 10:09:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ken Livingstone, why should London suffer alone
2006-09-25 06:59:09 · answer #10 · answered by Useless 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋