CLUNKY FIST DROWNING, NOT WAVING
Saturday, March 15, 2008 at 08:50PM 
Pity Gordon Brown. He had to wait all those long years for Tony Blair to exit the scene before he could ascend to the throne that he viewed as rightly his. Ever since he has become Prime Minister it's been a disaster for him and it's great fun watching Nulabour dissolve in front of our eyes. For all his faults, Blair was undoubtedly charismatic and he knew how to connect to the electorate but for Brown it's all such a struggle! He comes across as awkward, not a man of the people, and the lack of talent around him shows just how poor the pickings have become.
So, I see that the Conservatives have opened up a 16-point lead over Labour, their biggest in more than 20 years, a poll for this weekend’s Sunday Times has found.
YouGov put the Conservatives on 43%, compared with 27% for Labour and just 16% for Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats.
Gordon Brown has now taken Labour to its lowest poll rating since 1983, when Michael Foot was the party’s leader. If the results were repeated at a general election, Cameron would lead his party to a Commons majority of around 120. The poll also shows Alistair Darling’s budget has failed to go down well with voters — the Tories significantly are ahead on economic competence.
Brown will lead Labour to defeat - that is his fate and it couldn't happen to a nicer guy! Then, of course, we will have the problem of Call Me Dave to deal with!!!
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (20)
I've never seeing a Tory lead that size, it is truly astounding.
Gordon Brown's big problems are:
- People don't connect with him.
- He is surrounded by pygmies, because he has worked so hard to destroy any potential leadership threats to him over the last decade.
- His reputation was based on myth, that he was a good Chancellor. In reality he inherited a reformed and booming economy along with a benign global situation and then genuinely believed that this was a testament to his own genius.
Ross,
Exactly right. The "Iron Chancellor" line was one of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated by Labour. He was a calamity and now we can all see why.
Surely there is a better photo of G Brown?
I know one shouldn't condemn on appearances, but he looks like "Old Nick, sick of sin".
Bernard
David knows the old Fleet Street trick - always get the worst possible photo of your political enemies and the best photos of your political friends.
Think of how the dear old Daily Mail portrayed Thatcher and Kinnock in the 1980s and you will get the idea. Or the faked photo of Ted Kennedy with a painted in bottle of whisky in his hand, which frequently airs on ATW.
David,
Come on, what do you expect from a bean counter, charisma?
I don't know why the Labour party ever chose Gordon to be their new leader.Even John Major had more charisma and that's saying something.
Much as I would love to see Labour annihilated, I hope that the eventual Tory victory is much smaller than this. After all, a landslide would probably cement the position of Cameron and his leftists in control of the party for a decade to come. By contrast, a small majority against such useless opposition might well weaken Cameron's position, particularly if hopes of a large victory had been built up. Labour out and Cameron weakened would obviously be the ideal result, although whether it's actually possible is unclear.
Also, I note that if the poll predictions, or anything like them, should eventuate, then both Ruth Kelly (majority: 2,064) and Jacqui Smith (2,716) would probably be among the election's casualties. A pleasant thought.
Of course, it's also worth pointing out that far more people will opt for "none of the above" than will vote for any single party - any guesses as to how low the turnout will fall this time round?
How very strange, just a few days ago BBC devoted an awful lot of air time to a story based on the fact that the Tories had only a single point lead and that this was a clear evidence that people really should not vote for them. Has the greatest broadcasting organisation in the world got it wrong? Oh Dear.
A 16 point lead. Are you sure that will not translate into a small labour majority?
Will someone please state clearly what difference PM Cameron would make? Would the lunacies of NuLab's government be ended? Reduced immigration, no fawning over islam, reversal of the PC-tyranny, reduction of EU's authority etc? Not a bit of it!
All this chit-chat about 'Tory leads' etc. is just people who should know better fooling themselves.
Allan, a Conservative government might not do everything that you want them to but the choice is between them and Labour and I can't imagine a Conservative government pushing lunacies like this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/16/race.gender
Ross, the CONservatives under Cameron are pursuing exactly the same policies on immigration/race/gender/culture as NuLab. There is no difference at all. Infact, I despise the Conservative Party because its membership voted Cameron in to lead the 'Opposition' but they don't oppose any of NuLab's plans to obliterate the British people.
Calling themselves 'the Tory Party', or 'the Conservative Party', or any of the other fancy names they may use, surely leaves them open to prosecution under the Trades Description Act 1968...
Perhaps the 'Feeble and Useless Party' may be more appropriate, or, given that Cameron is already making his excuses for not cutting taxes, should he be elected, - the 'Anything you can steal, we can steal Better Party', - perhaps with a motto such as ; 'Think of us, not so much as a Government, but more as your Friend'...or - 'we are here to help!'.
Just what is it about 'Leadership', that they don't understand?...
Peter, I was being mildly ironic about that photo of G Brown.
He looks what he is; a cheating, lying scoundrel. And there is not a photo in existence that could portray him as anything other.
And now we have the spectacle of the pap-faced calender-girl Cameron, back-peddling furiously to convince us how "caring" they are about the 'Family', after 30 years of systematically dismantling that same institution.
Bastards, everyone of them. Utter bastards.
Bernard,
Shame you don't have more time - then you could tell us what you really think of them!..:-)
Well now, Bernard and Ernest, you are clearly sick of what is termed the 'mainstream'. Time to come off the fence as I have done. How would you vote in order to:
a) give the 'mainstream' parties of traitors and spivs a bloody nose, and
b) be reasonably effective - and I don't mean the rabble at UKIP.
There's no point in being shy about it - the bastards in Westminster are destroying our country while most of us sit at home and fume!
The question is would you vote, surely?
Allan,
If you are obliquely referring to the BNP, I doubt that even if they were able to get a mandate, they would know what to do with it. Then there is the problem - could I really cast a vote for them? - I seriously doubt it, as they are a remnant, or better yet, a rump, of Old Labour, - we are natural sworn enemies.
However, there have been so many alliances of convenience recently, would one more really be significant?
I am more in favour of doing something that stands some chance of being effective. Terrorism seems to be the current favourite tool for regime change, being virtually one hundred percent successful, as far as governments in the West are concerned.
However, I think I would prefer something more subtle, and more finely targetted, perhaps more personal to those who have caused such mayhem here.
Just what that would be, I really can't imagine!!!:-)
Alan,
An example of just what we are up against in even attempting to rectify the mess of the last two, - or is it three? decades.
Link