Referendum on Scottish Independence

[Flying Pig]

Actually from watching that video I don't think that really was the case - you could certainly have reversed the genders without affecting it markedly.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

True, and I do like Gordon Brown, although I don't think he was very good as prime minister. But it does remind me a little of the time a decade ago or more when Michael Howard was the Great White Hope of the Conservative party, at the tail end of IDS's leadership. It said a lot more about IDS than it did about Howard.

Gordon Brown's problem was that by the time he became PM he'd been running the domestic side of government for a decade as well as raising a young family- while trying to micromanage everything. The guy was utterly exhausted; it's no wonder he kept losing his temper.

There should be a new Septennial Act to force ministers to have a sabbatical every seven years. Six months as a backbencher before they can return to office. Staggered so they don't all leave at once.

 

[Borachio]

Gordon Brown is a very strange chap. He didn't get married until he was 49. That's suspiciously late, don't you think?

Some said, at the time, that he only got married to help his political career. A well-rounded politician must show it; by being capable of forming a committed relationship, I suppose.

 

[Quackers]

Gordon Brown's problem was that by the time he became PM he'd been running the domestic side of government for a decade as well as raising a young family- while trying to micromanage everything. The guy was utterly exhausted; it's no wonder he kept losing his temper.

There should be a new Septennial Act to force ministers to have a sabbatical every seven years. Six months as a backbencher before they can return to office. Staggered so they don't all leave at once.

To add to this, Brown had the most hostile media i've ever seen. Everybody was against him. It was like a campaign by every media outlet to oust the man. I think it was harmful to our democracy.

 

[jackelgull]

Funny you don't seem to think the same about Salmond and the Yes campaign in general.

 

[Borachio]

It's funny that Mr Quackers seems sympathetic to Brown. I didn't expect that at all.

 

[Quackers]

It's funny that Mr Quackers seems sympathetic to Brown. I didn't expect that at all.

I recall that a fairly benign youtube video where Mr Brown's smile was played out a million times in the national press as evidence to show the man wasn't the right person to lead us from 2010 onwards. When you see such flimsy evidence to discredit Brown you have to question the intent.

Back in 08 when Brown was getting enomous credit for "saving the world financial system" he got no credit from the British media or the public.

Definitely a whitewash IMO. I don't want Brown leading the country as much as I don't want Cameron.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

Gordon Brown is a very strange chap. He didn't get married until he was 49. That's suspiciously late, don't you think?

Some said, at the time, that he only got married to help his political career. A well-rounded politician must show it; by being capable of forming a committed relationship, I suppose.

He's a half-blind workaholic who likes to chat about neo-classical endogenous growth theory, so no, it doesn't surprise me. And I think that political calculations certainly played a part in his decision to get married (because of the prejudices you mentioned) *, but then he discovered that family life was surprisingly pleasant.

* I have they impression that most mediaeval European government bureaucracies were run by celibates, while China has a long tradition of castrated leadership. Perhaps having a First Spouse is overrated?

 

[Old Hippy]

And somehow they made amateur mistakes such as telling women to vote no because thinking for themselves was too complicated.

we will never know if it was an amateur mistake, the poll results tend to say it was not ...

 

[Tee Kay]

we will never know if it was an amateur mistake, the poll results tend to say it was not ...

Exploiting people's already low self-esteem. Works every time.

 

[Plotinus]

Gordon Brown is a very strange chap. He didn't get married until he was 49. That's suspiciously late, don't you think?

Some said, at the time, that he only got married to help his political career. A well-rounded politician must show it; by being capable of forming a committed relationship, I suppose.

Harsh, I think. Ted Heath never got married at all and he did all right. Gordon Brown was already chancellor when he got married, at the peak of his political career - if it had really been a cynical attempt to improve his image he'd have done it while in opposition.

 

[Borachio]

Maybe. But Heath perhaps predates a time when British political shenanigans took a decidedly US turn. All Presidents have to have a first lady to show. And the British are picking up on it. I got the impression that Brown, seeing the leadership in his sights (after the shady deal with Blair), felt it was time to get himself married.

I wouldn't suggest he isn't happily married now, of course. He gives every sign of being so.

 

[crabapple]

Since when is it strange to marry late? what is this? the 1950s?

 

[Plotinus]

All Presidents have to have a first lady to show. And the British are picking up on it.

I'm really not convinced that's true. Brown's wife had a very low public presence (indeed I had to google her to remember her name). Cameron's wife is also not particularly prominent, and I'd say the same of the spouses of both Major and Thatcher. I don't think people take them much into account when voting. There's no official office for them, as there is for the wives of US presidents, and they play no role in the political process, either formally or, as far as I can tell, informally, beyond whatever personal influence they have on their husbands. Cherie Blair is perhaps the closest one finds to a US first lady, but that's partly because she was a prominent legal figure anyway; and even there I don't think she was as significant to voters' assessment of Tony Blair as, say, Hilary Clinton was to voters' attitudes to Bill. She didn't sponsor bills in Parliament or spearhead social initiatives in the way that American first ladies seem to do - something that seems very strange from a UK perspective, at least to me!

 

[Borachio]

Since when is it strange to marry late? what is this? the 1950s?

I don't say it's all that strange. Just unusual. 49 is late, though I did once meet someone who got married for the first time at 60.

Anyway, I'm just picking up on what seems to me to be a growing tendency to take a politician's marital status into account when he presents his public profile. I don't say it's reached the level of the US. Just that it's working in that direction.

Can you imagine an unmarried atheist gay black female US President?

But as far as I'm concerned, it's neither here nor there.

 

[MacAttack]

So, how soon will we see yet another attempt at a Independence Referendum from Scotland?

 

[Pangur Bán]

SNP are paving the way for one just now. It might not be very long, but will definitely be after 2016.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

I'm really not convinced that's true. Brown's wife had a very low public presence (indeed I had to google her to remember her name). Cameron's wife is also not particularly prominent, and I'd say the same of the spouses of both Major and Thatcher. I don't think people take them much into account when voting. There's no official office for them, as there is for the wives of US presidents, and they play no role in the political process, either formally or, as far as I can tell, informally, beyond whatever personal influence they have on their husbands. Cherie Blair is perhaps the closest one finds to a US first lady, but that's partly because she was a prominent legal figure anyway; and even there I don't think she was as significant to voters' assessment of Tony Blair as, say, Hilary Clinton was to voters' attitudes to Bill. She didn't sponsor bills in Parliament or spearhead social initiatives in the way that American first ladies seem to do - something that seems very strange from a UK perspective, at least to me!

If you undergo the, er, unpleasant experience of reading the Daily Mail, then you will surely find they are quite prominent figures in that. (That is, if their figures are quite prominent, then the readers of the Daily Mail will ensure they're undergoing an unpleasant experience).

 

[JohannaK]

SNP are paving the way for one just now. It might not be very long, but will definitely be after 2016.

But before 2020?

 

[Traitorfish]

I think they'll probably wait until they have a solid chance of winning. They had to hold this one because it was in their election platform, but losing the referendum has ironically given them the luxury of waiting until the timing better suits them, because having fulfilled that promise they can continue to insist on the long-term need for Scottish independence while deferring to the unionist majority in the short-term.