Prev
Next

People sometimes get the leaders they didn’t vote for

Paul Colgan

by Paul Colgan

11 May 08:26am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: British Politics, Gordon Brown, Politics, Uk Election

34 comments

As a contemporary British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was always a bit of a misfit. The dour Scot always looked a little awkward in the place of his immaculately presented and well-spoken predecessors in Tony Blair, John Major and Margaret Thatcher.

The unhappy verdict from telegraph.co.uk

Can changing the leader somehow make a government legitimate when it has been so comprehensively beaten at the polls? Former Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown may have said, “The people have spoken, we just don’t know what they’ve said,” but in handing the Conservatives more seats than Labour, the only discernable message from British voters seems to be that the government’s time is up.

Brown’s surprise announcement that he will resign by September is a win-at-all-costs strategy. He’s willing to sacrifice himself to keep the Tories out of office. What’s unfolding now in Britain is an increasingly unseemly bidding war for power. The end result, if Labour manages to form a government, will be Britain having a Prime Minister it didn’t vote for.

It’s not unusual in Britain: Brown became Prime Minister in 2007 when Tony Blair made way for him, and the Conservatives rolled Thatcher mid-term in 1990 and installed Major in Downing Street.

And it was an argument deployed against John Howard in 2007: that voters might like him but by returning the Coalition to office they were in fact electing the less popular Peter Costello.

The brutal struggle for power in Britain has now taken an unseemly turn. Negotiations have become cloak-and-dagger, with the backroom discussions beginning to resemble something from a John le Carre novel. See this from The Times:

Unknown to the Tories, Downing Street had opened “back channels” to senior Lib Dems including the former party leaders Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, Charles Kennedy and Sir Menzies Campbell.

Vince Cable, Mr Clegg’s deputy, had also made clear to Number 10 that the Liberal Democrats “did not want to jump into bed” with the Conservatives.

It emerged that a Labour negotiating team, including Lord Mandelson, Ed Balls, Ed Miliband and Lord Adonis, met the Lib Dems on Saturday to scope out common ground.

Labour has been in office for 13 years. The Tories were in office for 18 years before that, a period many now agree was far too long, and the party was utterly disunified and engulfed in sleaze and scandal at the end of its term. Much has been said of the Tories earning the “moral right” to govern.

Down here we’re just observers in all this but what do you make of it? Should Labour form a government if it can make up the numbers?

Most commented

34 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Andrew says:

      10:32am | 11/05/10

      Britain needs to go back to the polls. That is the only democratic solution to this crisis. So far the Tories are behaving well in a difficult position. Labour and the Lib-Dems (really another Labour party) are behaving less well. The Lib-Dems cannot claim a mandate to push through changes on 22% of the vote and Labour has a lower percentage of the vote than the Tories so it cannot claim a mandate either - even in coalition with the Lib-Dems. There is then the ‘small’ problem of what SNP would demand if Labour resumes power and that could pave the way for a break up of the UK.
      It is possible the Queen could use her extra-ordinary constitutional powers (but would only do so on the advice of the government) to call for another election.  That would be the best solution to this mess.

      Reply

    • mw says:

      11:29am | 11/05/10

      Are you suggesting that the Liberal-National coalition here has no mandate to do anything ever?

    • LCD says:

      04:20pm | 11/05/10

      The Lib/Nats did it for 12 odd years…...

    • Anjuli says:

      11:24am | 11/05/10

      Agreed Andrew , and have it on a Saturday when there isn’t a soccer match !!!

      Reply

    • Steely Dan says:

      11:26am | 11/05/10

      @ Andrew

      Not so fast! The Brits only need to re-vote if an agreement can’t be reached between the Lib Dems and one of the majors.  If a minor party holds enough seats to have the balance of power, they have a mandate to represent their voters as best they can - and that can include supporting a major party (in fact, most minor party voters would love to see their chosen party get a share - however minor - of the power).  The major parties have a mandate to represent their constituents too, and that shouldn’t exclude taking on the Lib Dems as a junior partner, provided they don’t have to sacrifice too much.  Every voter (especially in this election) understands that a power-sharing arrangement is highly probable.

      Reply

    • Chris says:

      02:10pm | 11/05/10

      Except that it will not really be an agreement as such - unless the Lib-Dems show their true Labour colours. It will be a marriage of convenience.
      In the interests of stability they would be better off seeking a new mandate from the electorate before they dig a deeper financial hole.
      Any power sharing agreement will be of a very limited life-span. It could destabilise Northern Ireland again. It will almost certainly destabilise Scotland and could arouse renewed interest in Welsh nationalism.
      It is about the worst result for the country - and probably came about because of the televised debates that gave Nick Clegg greater coverage than was warranted given the status of the party. Without we may even have seen Labour returned with a bare majority.

    • Steely Dan says:

      04:51pm | 11/05/10

      @ Chris

      “Except that it will not really be an agreement as such… It will be a marriage of convenience.”
      What’s the difference?  Compromises will be made, certainly.  But if too much is given, they’ll lose their support base and they’ll be booted.  That’s when you go to the ballot box again.

      “In the interests of stability they would be better off seeking a new mandate from the electorate before they dig a deeper financial hole.”
      I can guarantee you having the country re-vote until one of the majors have the seats to govern in their own right will be much more expensive than having the Lib Dems pick the party that can give their constituents the best value for vote.

      And how will power-sharing destabilise Northern Ireland etc?

    • Randal says:

      11:32am | 11/05/10

      Should the Lib Dems make a deal with Labour they will still fall short of the required 326 seats and will rely upon other minor parties to govern, this would create an unworkable parliament and the Tories, quite rightly being the largest represented party in the House of Commons would act as a spoiler, and should get the support of the Unionists.

      Once the minority government of Labour becomes unworkable, there will be a very quick second election and the Lib Dems and the Labour party may find a very unforgiving public who perhaps believe that they made a self serving decision (during a very difficult economic times) that was not in the best interest of the nation, by attempting to govern with an unworkable combined minority, and as a result the public may make a more decisive decision at another election in such a short period of time.

      Time will tell, but this is a critical decision for the Lib Dems as they may end up the biggest loser if they are seen to not deliver on their promise as a responsible third party.

      Reply

    • Roy McKeen says:

      11:50am | 11/05/10

      Andrew raises an interesting point. After all the shenanigans at Westminster what happens if the Scots opt for independence and the United Kingdom is dissolved. Section 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act states: The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. But what if there is no United Kingdom? What effect will this have on Australia’s Constitution?  What if the Union Jack is consigned to the dustbin of history?  Will Australia still keep it in the position of honour on its flag? The logical answer to these questions is for Australia (i) to cut its
      constitutional ties to the British monarchy and (ii) get a flag of our own.

      Reply

    • Ben G says:

      01:17pm | 11/05/10

      Hmm yes… My friend raised an interesting point, what about Nintendo? Where do they stand in all of this?
      Oh, what? That has nothing to do with the topic? Nothing at all?
      You got me, I just brought up Nintendo because it’s my pet issue that I wanted to talk about in a forum that had nothing to do with it.

    • Sean Williams says:

      03:50am | 12/05/10

      It’s all moot now that the Con-Lib Dem deal is back on but if Scotland was ever to vote for independence (and despite wily SNP politicking there is no near prospect of this with still less than 25% of Scots interested) there would still be a United Kingdom, just that it would comprise three nations rather than four. Scotland could politely ask for the “blue bits” to be taken off the Union Flag but think there would be more pressing matters to attend to. Current SNP policy is for the Queen to remain head of state of Scotland in the event of independence. If Aussies want a republic and a new flag they should get on with it themselves. Although as a British republican I am tickled by the unlikely yet delicious prospect of us getting rid of the monarchy first and watching Australia scramble to catch-up!

    • Ben Colby says:

      12:04pm | 11/05/10

      Personally Im not surprised at this at all. Stop an think woudl you be happy if soemone did soemthing you dont like? Weve gone from a Kevin Rudd that does everything good to Kevin Rudd that has backe dout of policy that make shim look bad. But lets be honest why has our PM backed away from these policies? Firstly Tony Abootts blocked his policies so Kev needs to go back to the drawing board which wont happen overnight secondly The Government has been fiscally responsible and kept the country out of debt infact we are respected for being world leaders with our economy if people thought labor would just continue giving out handouts they are seriously wrong. I think we ought to be a little more thougtful and less ‘more fo me attitude’ as for mining tax seriously its time the big end of town paid up. If anything Kevin Ruidd looks more like a Liberal leader than a Labor leader but is that warranted under current economic pressures?.

      Reply

    • Frosty says:

      12:49pm | 11/05/10

      “The Government has been fiscally responsible and kept the country out of debt” 

      Admit it your name is actually Kevin isn’t it?

    • Mark says:

      12:55pm | 11/05/10

      Kevin Rudd has kept the country out of debt???????????
      What planet are you living on? Last time i looked we were down the hole to the tune of $200billion.

    • WK says:

      01:26pm | 11/05/10

      What on earth does this article have to do with Kevin Rudd and the mining tax? Kept the country out of debt? Did you emerge from hibernation yesterday?

      Abbott cannot block policies by himself, he doesn’t have the numbers. If Rudd was such a great fiscal conservative then he shouldn’t have any problems getting things past Abbott.

      Another rusted on ALP supporter that can’t bear to watch their beloved party fall apart.

    • Ben G says:

      01:29pm | 11/05/10

      I have to do this…
      First you say the government has kept the country out of debt: False. Straightup false.
      Then you say “If people thought Labor would just continue giving handouts they were wrong”, despite 2 stimulus handouts, the insulation debacle, the school halls etc., so anyone who thought Labor would just continue giving handouts was absolutely 100% right.
      Then you say we should be more “thougtful” and have less of a “more for me” attitude, immediately followed by you demanding that someone else pay more taxes, despite the fact that “the big end of town” already pays far more tax than the “little end”.
      Please excuse yourself from all jobs involving heavy machinery, and please, don’t vote, ever.

    • Jane the elder says:

      01:37pm | 11/05/10

      “The Government has been fiscally responsible and kept the country out of debt ” 

      WHAT?

      A gift for you from the slow learner centre: http://www.debtclock.com.au/

      The numbers are spinning as fast as you and your hero.

    • TWAWKI says:

      12:52pm | 11/05/10

      No it shouldnt. If it wants to do the wrong thing then it will lose even more votes!

      Reply

    • Polywatcher says:

      12:59pm | 11/05/10

      Now that PM Gordon of the UK has “thrown in the towel” perhaps Kevin 10 should apply for the top job in England. His presence is superfluous here.

      Reply

    • Ben G says:

      01:05pm | 11/05/10

      It’s not quite as cloak and dagger as the article puts it.
      Firstly, there are reasons that a coalition between the two progressive parties could be perceived as legitimate, the most obvious being that although the Tories did well, there is still a “progressive majority”, which is to say, a majority of people probably still don’t want the Tories to lead.
      That said, I think it’s pretty hard for the Prime Minister to come from a party that the country is clearly fed-up with.
      The Lib-Dems (I think) have a moral obligation to try their hardest to do a deal with the Tories first, and if the Tories offer them a decent deal (which I think that they have), they’re pretty much all duty-bound to suck up any ideological differences and get down to the business of government.
      If it truly is hopeless, you have to call another election and I’ve got a feeling (although it’s by no means certain) that a few months down the track, that’s what they’ll be getting.

      Reply

    • Simon says:

      07:09pm | 11/05/10

      Hi Ben G, you seem to know what your on about so I"ll ask you please, What role does the queen play in this, if any,  why doesn’t she just appoint anyone for PM until they show they can’t govern and then call another election, have I got her role wrong?

    • Denis Ives says:

      01:50pm | 11/05/10

      If Labour, the Lib Dems and others make a deal to form a Government, it would be in the context of not knowing who is going to be PM beyond September—a rather odd proposition to sell to the community, don’t you think?

      Reply

    • Denis Ives says:

      01:51pm | 11/05/10

      If Labour, the Lib Dems and others make a deal to form a Government, it would be in the context of not knowing who is going to be PM beyond September—a rather odd proposition to sell to the community, don’t you think?

      Reply

    • Scarlett Street Rocker says:

      02:23pm | 11/05/10

      The Tories are “The NASTY Party” and always will be.
      Keep them out!

      Reply

    • Sam says:

      03:07pm | 11/05/10

      “It’s not unusual in Britain: Brown became Prime Minister in 2007 when Tony Blair made way for him, and the Conservatives rolled Thatcher mid-term in 1990 and installed Major in Downing Street.”

      Its not unusual in NSW either as Morris Iemma, Nathan Rees, Kristina Kenelly were not elected when the became premiers.

      Also your understanding of the Westminister system flawed, the only people who get to vote for Brown are those who live in his constituency. Same as in Australia, only people who live in Division of Griffith vote for Rudd. The rest vote for their MPs who can pull the rug on their leader anytime.

      We don’t follow the Israeli system where you vote for the Prime Minister directly, nor do the British

      Reply

    • Marie says:

      04:08pm | 11/05/10

      Hopefully the british labour party will be the last of the “coalition of the willing” to loose government. Goodbye war mungers !!

      Reply

    • Super D says:

      04:11pm | 11/05/10

      In NSW we’ve long forgotten what it is like to be governed by someone we elected.

      Reply

    • David J says:

      09:08pm | 11/05/10

      And not only that Super D, but we got rubbish in its place. This electricity rise is the finish of Labor. Pensioners will freeze to death. They gave them a lousy $15 extra rebate a year. Thats like a days use for my family. I vote Labor but next election my hand is going to learn to vote in the Independant box

    • Andrew says:

      04:18pm | 11/05/10

      Aside from that being mad Scarlett, if you think they where ‘nasty’ before, wait until they have to try and fix this mess brown has gotten the country into, it’s worse than when thatcher came in.

      Reply

    • Zoe Kays says:

      04:30pm | 11/05/10

      The bullying arrogance and dishonesty of Labour was on display again in Alistair Campbell’s attitude in this interview - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XHuZqyuIS8 (whatever you might think about the Sky reporter involved) - and in Ben Bradshaw’s twitter saying, ‘The Bullingdon Boy didn’t win - get over it!’ No, it appears that after all the Bullingdon boy didn’t win - because the Bully Boys won’t recognise that he actually did.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      07:34pm | 11/05/10

      You know what?  Canada, another Westminster democracy, has had scads of minority governments over the last century.  It has a minority government right now. Not a coalition, a minority, as they have all been. 

      It is not outside human experience for a party to govern without a majority in Parliament. It requires compromise, negotiation skills, and an ability to accept that the electorate actually wanted some form of change, but wasn’t prepared to commit to any extremes.  Take it from there.

      Reply

    • loz says:

      12:23am | 12/05/10

      If PM Gordon Brown had not fallen on his sword the Liberal Democrats and other minor parties could have supported Labour but would have needed sufficient votes to survive a no confidence motion, the Queen would have then commissioned the Labour leader as Prime Minister. The customary responsibility of the Queen is to commission the leader of the party who can command a majority in the House of Commons. As this did not happen the Queen then must commission the leader of the party who will be able to survive a vote of no confidence in the lower house. Whether that is through a merger or otherwise that is for the political parties to negotiate, not the Queen. The Monarch {above political parties} is there to protect the interests of the people and to ensure stable government during these times of uncertainty. Should no party be able to survive a vote of no confidence, another election would be necessary.

      Reply

    • Bo Selecta says:

      02:06am | 12/05/10

      Nick Clegg should organise an informal poll of every newly elected member of parliament. He should make it clear that the results of the poll will deturmine his decision.

      There will be two options on the ballot:
      Conservative/Lib Dem coalition.
      Labour/Lib Dem/his chosen 3rd party coalition with Labour’s chosen leader as PM.

      Have the poll, make the decision, then make it work.

      They shouldn’t be trading issues and portfolio’s behind closed doors.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 22 May 13 10:15PM

Found a TV meteorologist on Twitter with the last name Piotrowski. There's a whole newsroom of Piotrowskis out there

Paul Colgan

Colgo 22 May 13 09:41PM

RT @businessinsider: Man Being Questioned For Boston Bombing Connection Shot And Killed By FBI by @paulszoldrahttp://t.co/OtypP2PRgI

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 22 May 13 09:19PM

This is a must read @TheAtlantic. Whether you think you know everything or think you know nothing http://t.co/naoUutCoWF

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 22 May 13 07:53PM

RT @JoshuaWithers: Have you seen the Australian version of Breaking bad? He get's cancer and Medicare covers his costs and the series ends.

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter