Poll: Gordon Brown - yeh or ney

Will Gordon Brown be a better or worse PM than Tony Blair?

  • Gordon Brown will be better

    Votes: 35 8.8%

  • Gordon Brown will be worse

    Votes: 262 65.8%

  • Equally as good/bad

    Votes: 101 25.4%
  • Total voters
    398
Joe42 said:
I think perhaps one of the reasons the Queen hasn't abdicated is because not many people like charles so she wants to wait for him to get too old.
Click to expand...

I would say she is Just plain Stubborn and wont give it up :p (I hope she doesnt because that means We down here may become a republic :( )
Oh and it seems Carmilla isnt one of her favorite people either :p

I dont have anything Against Charles and he probably would make an Ok king, But William and Harry have some sort of spark about them that Could make them very powerful people
 
cleanbluesky said:
Which belief? ;)

Got a source?
Click to expand...
Yeah me - I have extensive experience of claiming JSA. You don't have to apply for every single last job in the world obviously, but you do have to make an effort to get any job you are capable of, after a certain period (three months IIRC - but it is nearly five years since I last claimed dole). For the first three months you are allowed to be choosy about what job and what wage you will go for, within reason.
 
Zip said:
I would say she is Just plain Stubborn and wont give it up :p (I hope she doesnt because that means We down here may become a republic :( )
Oh and it seems Carmilla isnt one of her favorite people either :p

I dont have anything Against Charles and he probably would make an Ok king, But William and Harry have some sort of spark about them that Could make them very powerful people
Click to expand...
I love the Queen and i hope she'll live as long as her mother and not abdicate, but i don't like charles and i agree either william or harry would be a lot better.
 
dirtydog said:
Yes they would be, but how do housing and council tax benefit not directly aid the individual? You've lost me :) Having a roof over your head is a pretty direct benefit isn't it?
Click to expand...

I mean that, at the end of the day, its a roof over your head.

If person A lives in a small house scottish hamlet, and the government gives him 100 quid a month to cover the cost of his housing, and person B lives in a small house in Jensington and the government gives him 2000 quid a month to cover his housing, then is person B really 20 times better off than person A?

I'd say not. Thats what I meant by not directly benefitting them, as its a facilitating benefit, rather than something they can then spend.
 
Visage said:
I mean that, at the end of the day, its a roof over your head.

If person A lives in a small house scottish hamlet, and the government gives him 100 quid a month to cover the cost of his housing, and person B lives in a small house in Jensington and the government gives him 2000 quid a month to cover his housing, then is person B really 20 times better off than person A?

I'd say not. Thats what I meant by not directly benefitting them, as its a facilitating benefit, rather than something they can then spend.
Click to expand...
I have never said otherwise? :) Both person A and B would be no better off than each other. My point was that minimum wage does not help person B because he still needs to claim benefits anyway. The idea that it has "lifted people out of poverty" and "if you work, work will pay" is frequently incorrect.
 
AcidHell2 said:
ney, ney, ney, ney.......

I would actually prefer for blair to stay in another term than gordon brown to be in control of the country...
Click to expand...
My thoughts too. Not a fan of Blair or Labour but Brown getting in would be a blow for the country.

He shows no statesmanship potential amongst many other things.
 
dirtydog said:
The idea that it has "lifted people out of poverty" and "if you work, work will pay" is frequently incorrect.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, but we were also questioning your comment on the idea that many who claim benefits enjoy some kind of luxury as a result
 
cleanbluesky said:
I agree with this, but we were also questioning your comment on the idea that many who claim benefits enjoy some kind of luxury as a result
Click to expand...
Did I say luxury? :) I said that many on benefits have a lifestyle equal to or better than many who work. This is undeniably correct.

Maybe I need to take more time to compose my posts as I don't seem to be getting my points across very well today... :/
 
dirtydog said:
Did I say luxury? :) I said that many on benefits have a lifestyle equal to or better than many who work. This is undeniably correct.

Maybe I need to take more time to compose my posts as I don't seem to be getting my points across very well today... :/
Click to expand...
Perhaps for a certain period, however I guess there's the argument that by working it puts you on a ladder towards higher wages and a greater standard of living whilst the lifelong benefit person is stuck at the minimum standard of living.
 
dirtydog said:
Did I say luxury? :) I said that many on benefits have a lifestyle equal to or better than many who work. This is undeniably correct.
Click to expand...

That would depend. I'd say that a doley has little disposable income, whereas many workers do have a significant disposable income and even the capacity to invest their money in their mortgage.
 
Voted as both equally bad, both for Labour and the country.

Tony Blair is most certainly the more skilled politician, but is now so tainted with the talk of leaving and the dirt that has stuck with the war et al.

Gordon Brown is not that bad a politician but I can't see him being a PM. People like my parents who have not done too badly under new labour will definitely turn away from him.

I get the feeling the next election is going to be far more interesting than the last couple. I would expect the tories to do a lot better and the Lib dems to pick up some more seats from people that don't want either and like the green card.

As a lib dem supporter I think the future actually looks pretty good at the moment. Ming isn't getting a lot of media coverage for the party though, and while he is a very able politician he is of the old 'statesman' style and it's very hard to call which way that will go with the public come election time. (assuming he's still leader before the next election!)
 
cleanbluesky said:
That would depend. I'd say that a doley has little disposable income, whereas many workers do have a significant disposable income and even the capacity to invest their money in their mortgage.
Click to expand...
And many many workers have very little disposable income, particularly single people, and/or those who live in expensive areas. I'm not being rude as I don't know you or your circumstances but perhaps your circle of friends and acquaintances hasn't revealed to you that many people who work are poor and have no more disposable cash than those on benefits - often less so. I know this to be true from first hand experience.
 
dirtydog said:
He'd be keeping it real of course!
Click to expand...
:p

It really is quite funny* at the moment the way the direction of the political parties have gone, Cameron has done exactly what he was elected to do in that he's dragged the Tory party direction firmly into the middle ground previously occupied by New Labour, so much so that the mood I pick up is that a lot of previous Labour voters wouldn't actually mind the Tories getting in as there's so little to choose between them! Can you imagine that when Howard was in charge?!

*In a kind of depressing way..
 
The problem is while cameron might be heading towards the middle ground this is exactly the same tory party with exactly the same tories in it and they will still be the ones running the country.
Visage said:
There are a lot of hoodies who'll get a lot of hugs from David 'Call me Dave' Cameron.
Click to expand...
Hope so, he'll get what he deserves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom