Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:16 pm Post subject: Gordon Brown
Enough about Sarkozy...
Gordon Brown, currently Chancellor of the Exchequer, becomes the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom tomorrow. He is Scottish, and is the Labour MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, in Fife, Scotland. Together with Tony Blair, he has been a major architect of 'New Labour'.
I'm not really expecting any significant change from this. What will be particularly interesting for me though is how he works (or doesn't work) with Alex Salmond, the recently elected First Minister of Scotland who supports Scottish independence. Unsurprisingly, Gordon Brown is strongly 'unionist' (i.e. opposes Scottish independence), has been attempting to emphasise 'Britishness' and wants to introduce a British 'national day', similar to 14th July in France, or 4th July in the United States. He didn't contact Salmond until after four weeks of him (Salmond) having been elected, even though he was extremely quick to congratulate Sarkozy.
The deputy leader of the Labour Party, who may or may not be made Deputy Prime Minister, has also just been elected — Harriet Harman:
During her election campaign, she said that she though that the Labour Party should apologise for the war in the Iraq. However, for some reason, she is now denying that she said this.
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 3:36 pm Post subject: Re: Gordon Brown
Benjamin wrote:
Enough about Sarkozy...
True... Anyway, I might have mentioned somwhere on this forum that I loved the way French people pronounce his name, giving his name a new meaning, i.e. "someone from the shit alley".
Benjamin wrote:
I'm not really expecting any significant change from this. What will be particularly interesting for me though is how he works (or doesn't work) with Alex Salmond, the recently elected First Minister of Scotland who supports Scottish independence. Unsurprisingly, Gordon Brown is strongly 'unionist' (i.e. opposes Scottish independence), has been attempting to emphasise 'Britishness' and wants to introduce a British 'national day', similar to 14th July in France, or 4th July in the United States. He didn't contact Salmond until after four weeks of him (Salmond) having been elected, even though he was extremely quick to congratulate Sarkozy.
To be perfectly honest, I don't expect much change from him, either...I can only hope that he will be less economical with the truth than his predecessor. However, I can't really speak with authority as I don't know him well enough. I can recall the first time I've ever heard him speak. It was a public speech, an awfully long one, I have to say. As the Chancellor of Exchequer, he was talking about fiscal issues and about the so-called sleaze-busting package but I don't remember what exactly he said. What I know is that he kept reiterating the same things ad nauseam, which all sounded well but I wasn't sure if he really meant it. It sounded sort of demagogic, like most of the public speeches delivered by polticians (the Nicol Stephen syndrome, which seems to be endemic - all unionists suffer from it. LOL). Funnily enough, he seemed to slowly but surely get tired of his own monologue or probably simply by himself. His speech was divided into two parts, so there was a break in the middle. Before the break, he had been able to introduce his ideas without looking into his papers, but after the break he couldn't be bothered to talk freely. Thus, his speech descended into a rather lacklustre performance.
As for the unionist-separatist conflict, I don't know how he is going to handle it. I think it will be a never-ending debate...without any prospects for real independence...
Anyway, Labour PMs in general have a peculiar penchant for congratulating other PMs as soon as possible, and in as flattering a manner as possible. However, I thought it only applied to certain cases, namely, when the newly elected PM happens to be their "comrade". But Sarkozy is a fierce conservative, for aught I know... _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 5:16 pm Post subject: Re: Gordon Brown
Liz wrote:
I can recall the first time I've ever heard him speak. It was a public speech, an awfully long one, I have to say. As the Chancellor of Exchequer, he was talking about fiscal issues and about the so-called sleaze-busting package but I don't remember what exactly he said. What I know is that he kept reiterating the same things ad nauseam, which all sounded well but I wasn't sure if he really meant it. It sounded sort of demagogic, like most of the public speeches delivered by polticians (the Nicol Stephen syndrome, which seems to be endemic - all unionists suffer from it. LOL). Funnily enough, he seemed to slowly but surely get tired of his own monologue or probably simply by himself. His speech was divided into two parts, so there was a break in the middle. Before the break, he had been able to introduce his ideas without looking into his papers, but after the break he couldn't be bothered to talk freely. Thus, his speech descended into a rather lacklustre performance.
Yes, that's definitely Gordon Brown. People often say that Tony Blair is more about 'personality', whilst Gordon Brown is more about 'policy'.
I've posted this quotation on this forum before, I think, but I'll post it again — it's from Faintheart – An Englishman Ventures North of the Border by Charles Jennings, and I think it sums Gordon Brown up perfectly:
On the upside, however, was the fact that [the hotel] was on the edge of Edinburgh's magnificent New Town and shared with the buildings of that eighteenth century masterpiece many of their finer architectural points. Even though the place I was in — once a private home of great style and splendour — was Victorian in origin, it had the same stately ashlared façade and dignified classical proportions and motifs as the Georgian quarter. It had the same pediments, pilasters and mouldings. It also had the same huge rectangular windows as the best of the New Town — windows through which I had been randomly staring at Edinburgh life ever since I hit the city. So far I had seen a drum kit; a number of offices with grey steel filing cabinets and dreamy-looking staff prising the lids of yoghurt pots, and shuffling envelopes; a surprising number of claret-coloured walls; and an old lady trying to get a telly to work while two teenage girls looked on, anxiously.
I had also witnessed several apparently perfectly preserved Victorian interiors, full of sombre paintwork, dado rails, old-fashioned potted plants like mother-in-law's tongue and aspidistra, paintings in gilt frame, stuffed birds mounted on little artificial outgrops of rock and covered by bell-glasses, vases and urns of fantastic size and ugliness, bookcases filled with Royal Automobile Club-style uniform bound volumes and surmounted by classical broken pediments. It was impossible to tell whether they were kept this way out of aesthetic conservatism or stinginess. Sometimes there would be an old man, seated in a leather armchair, reading a newspaper, sometimes scratching his leg.
My own gaff had a monumental hall and staircase, the sort you don't get in London any more unless you're hugely rich and can afford a full-sized period London townhouse. If my place was at all typical, then your average Edinburgh hotelier, unlike a rich Londoner faced with such space and prodigality, will leave the staircase very much in the nineteenth-century mould. The paintwork will be dark to the point of blackness. The lights will never be more than 60 watts. The woodwork will bear the same morbid varnishes of 140 years ago. There will be strange mesh trays hanging over the upper banister rails, either to put plants on or to stop people committing suicide by hurling themselves down on to the tessellated floor of the entrance hall.
The hotelier will also have a door marked Cocktail Lounge on the landing of the first floor. Every time I tried this door in my hotel, it was locked. And then, one evening, it fell open and I found inside a medium-sized room with all the lights on, and with some Formica tables dotted around. One of these tables had a half-finished game of chess on it. An anorak had been slung over the back of a neighbouring chair. There was no-one there. It was like reading a book and finding a chapter from another, wholly unrelated book intercalated about halfway through, thanks to an error at the binder's.
Over time, I realised that all this was pure Edinburgh, inside and out. It was like being inside Gordon Brown: rigorous, solid, lumpily handsome, old-fashioned, forbidding, short of élan, humourless, stuffy, imposing, suffocating, defiant, prim. I decided that in fact the bad bits — the shortage of light, the vertigo, the unease, the strong reek of the past — were so glumly Edinburgh that they were good bits after all, and that everything was really as perfect as it was going to get.
Liz wrote:
Anyway, Labour PMs in general have a peculiar penchant for congratulating other PMs as soon as possible, and in as flattering a manner as possible. However, I thought it only applied to certain cases, namely, when the newly elected PM happens to be their "comrade". But Sarkozy is a fierce conservative, for aught I know...
New Labour seem to have a habit of cosying up to shady right-wing politicians — George W. Bush, Silvio Berlusconi, and now Nicolas Sarkozy. What next? Coalition with the Conservatives?
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject: Re: Gordon Brown
Benjamin wrote:
Yes, that's definitely Gordon Brown.
Okay...then it wasn't only *my* impression...
Benjamin wrote:
People often say that Tony Blair is more about 'personality', whilst Gordon Brown is more about 'policy'.
In a way, yes. Tony Blair is an excellent actor and a charismatic person, which doesn't necessarily make a good poltician but he has all the characteristic features which are likely to make him seen as such...at least at first sight. Gordon Brown is not such a person by any stretch of the imagination, making the impression of a somewhat dull and a bit stiff character. However, I'm not sure if he is that much different from Blair as far as policy and politics are concerned, but let's hope the best...
Benjamin wrote:
I've posted this quotation on this forum before, I think, but I'll post it again — it's from Faintheart – An Englishman Ventures North of the Border by Charles Jennings, and I think it sums Gordon Brown up perfectly:
An interesting piece, Benjamin. It definitely conjures up the image of Gordon Brown, even before his name is mentioned. I was wondering to what extent this image is compatible with the idea of "Labour", especially that of "New Labour" - the "New Labour" which has largely contributed to the creation of "Cool Britannia", which has descended into "Cruel Britannia". Wasn't it their main aim to eliminate stereotypes of Britain such as being old-fashioned, stiff, hypocritical, having crooked teeth (well, I'm not insinuating that Gordon Brown has croked teeth ) etc. Well, Gordon Brown conjures up the image of an old Conservative. Tony Blair wasn't the perfect epitome of a Labour MP/PM, either, but...
Benjamin wrote:
New Labour seem to have a habit of cosying up to shady right-wing politicians — George W. Bush, Silvio Berlusconi, and now Nicolas Sarkozy. What next? Coalition with the Conservatives?
Absolutely. It's an interesting and at the same time frightening tendency to be observed in Hungary as well. Left-wingers heading in the right direction and vice versa. I'm afraid to think of what comes next...
By the way, what about the Conservatives...they seem to keep a low profile nowadays... _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:26 pm Post subject: Re: Gordon Brown
Liz wrote:
It definitely conjures up the image of Gordon Brown, even before his name is mentioned. I was wondering to what extent this image is compatible with the idea of "Labour", especially that of "New Labour" - the "New Labour" which has largely contributed to the creation of "Cool Britannia", which has descended into "Cruel Britannia". Wasn't it their main aim to eliminate stereotypes of Britain such as being old-fashioned, stiff, hypocritical, having crooked teeth (well, I'm not insinuating that Gordon Brown has croked teeth ) etc. Well, Gordon Brown conjures up the image of an old Conservative. Tony Blair wasn't the perfect epitome of a Labour MP/PM, either, but...
It's certainly very different from the image which Tony Blair was trying to achieve 10 years ago. I remember the aftermath of Labour's victory in 1997 — everything seemed so positive then, what with the Millennium coming up, Tony Blair talking enthusiastically about a 'New Britain' and pledging to put Britain at the heart of Europe... my god, where did it all go wrong?
The MP for where I live is Labour. However, she has opposed almost all of Tony Blair's main policies, and could best be described as a 'traditional socialist'. To be honest, I think there's too much diversity of political views within the Labour Party, with the leadership being rather more right-wing than the core membership.
Liz wrote:
By the way, what about the Conservatives...they seem to keep a low profile nowadays...
They've traditionally been seen as the 'nasty party' by many people. Their new leader David Cameron has taken an approach very similar to that of Tony Blair, and has attempted to make his party more socially liberal (he spoke in favour of gay unions, for example). For the past few months, they've actually been ahead of Labour in the polls.
As for the Liberal Democrats... Gordon Brown has expressed an obvious desire to bring them into government, by offering the job of Northern Ireland secretary to former Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown (his full real name is actually Lord Jeremy John Durham Ashdown, Baron Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon). However, this was rejected by both Paddy Ashdown and the current Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell, and was also opposed by many people in the Labour Party.
Incidentally, Sir Menzies Campbell is the MP for where I'm hoping to move to next year.
Benjamin,
Is it true that Tony Blair is soon expected to announce that he is going to convert to Roman Catholicism?
Apparently, yes. His wife is a Roman Catholic, his children went/go to a Roman Catholic school, he is currently an Anglo-Catholic (i.e. an Anglican who is sympathetic towards the beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church) and he has apparently expressed interest in converting to Roman Catholicism in the past. He has also announced his intention to establish an organisation that will bring together Christians, Muslims and Jews, and has spoken to the Pope for endorsement. So yes, it seems likely.
His flirting with Roman Catholicism has been going on for years though — I don't understand why he hasn't become a Roman Catholic already.
I think it is not an exaggeration to say that today is a capstone as far as British politics is concerned. In future, all Conservatives can look upon this day as the darkest hour before the dawn, the beginning of the end of Labour dominance.
Perhaps I am a romantic at heart and I am loathe to speak ill of the Right Honourable Anthony C Blair now that he has vacated the corridors of power. However, for the sake of an informed analysis, I must give my tuppence worth.
My own view is that Mr Blair, a usually likeable man, has convictions to which he hold strongly - while he holds them. His convictions can be pretty malleable and change on issues as disparate as fox hunting, nuclear deterrence, civil liberties, the constitution, the euro, the casus belli for Iraq, partly to reflect what he genuinely believes to be the prevailing public mood. I do not deny that Mr Blair had shown considerable courage from time to time, sticking his neck out to defend a policy he has decidedly to wholeheartedly pursue. Iraq falls squarely into this category. The PM and his advisors had probably expected a quick victory to turn opinion around and that the toppling of the ruthless Saddam Hussein would be seen as the liberation of an oppressed nation suffering under the Baathist yoke. For all his intelligence and foresight, he failed to foresee the bloody quagmire which Iraq has since descended into.
His critics would have a field day, but whatever his changing positions, there can be no questioning of Mr Blair's integrity. His veracity, decency and dedication to a higher good than vulgar pragmatism have to be explicitly and grudgingly conceded. He has to be accepted as a man of unchallenged honour; it is heresy to suggest that, like most politicians, he has behaved like a charlatan. Mr Blair's integrity stands crystal clear for all of us to see and it has to be defended at all costs.
Some would deride his foreign policy as muddled; many more sniggered that he is a mere Poodle instead of a strategic partner. Certainly, Mr Blair was keen on preserving and strengthening the special transatlantic relationship which both the UK and the USA share. He believes that a healthy and robust alliance with the USA can allow Britain to project its influence globally. Mr Blair hence decided to commit British soldiers in Iraq because he believed that it would be perilous for Britain, indeed for all of America's true allies, to leave America to fight alone.
What is the definition of a friend? A friend in need is a friend indeed. As much as I now deplore the original reasons for going to war in Iraq, I equally deplore the shrill cry which emanated from Paris, Berlin and Moscow denouncing the invasion as nothing but an american adventure in the pursuit of oil. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone; I was and remain sceptical of French commercial interests in Saddamist Iraq. Clearly, nobody's hands are clean even if they want to wash it off like Pontius Pilate.
At any rate, America would have gone on to invade Iraq with or without the support of Britain. Blair was merely playing the role of a supporting extra in the script; the protagonist was President Bush himself. But if Mr Blair had chosen to stay out of the conflict and watch dispassionately from the sidelines, what would have been the ramifications? It is possible that British hesitation would have encouraged doubts in the American establishment. The failure of Britain, her closest ally, to muster support for this enterprise would effectively convince America that a unilateral mode of action is the only way in all future expeditions. It would have confirmed what Bismarck once observed about geopolitics when he pithily said that there are no permanent allies but interests.
Anyway, it is too early to tell if Iraq would turn out to be a timid success or a resounding failure. For the sake of her people, we must ferverently hope for the latter. What I heartily dislike about many peaceniks is their desire to sabotage all reconstruction attempts in Iraq. Now that the deed has been done, it is only sensible and responsible to dig in for the long run.
Honestly, I like Mr Blair. He is eloquent and never fails to enliven the House during parliamentary sessions. In contrast, Mr Brown's dour oratory is nothing to write home about. But he was at least a very keen footballer and rugby player in his youth so that could be a strong plus point for the new Prime Minister. This shows that he is a team player. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Lol. Benjamin, it doesn't take a mindreader to discern your rather perverted motives for a Tory victory.
Let's not forget that they are officially the Conservative & Unionist Party and it is not very likely that they would concede independence to Scotland without fighting tooth and nail over it. Over my dead body, I can imagine the PM in waiting David Cameron snorting. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Let's not forget that they are officially the Conservative & Unionist Party and it is not very likely that they would concede independence to Scotland without fighting tooth and nail over it.
The Conservatives are frequently the fourth party in Scotland. And actually, their vice-chair has declared his support for an independence referendum, and claims to have the support of at least five Conservative MSPs. Equally, there are rumours that support for independence within the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party is increasing.
I suspect that there are actually quite a lot of Conservatives in England who would love to wave goodbye to Scotland — I know several Conservative supporters who would, anyway. And although they are officially 'unionist', the fact that they have 'Unionist' in their official title historically has little if anything to do with Scotland.
loic wrote:
Over my dead body, I can imagine the PM in waiting David Cameron snorting.
David Cameron said:
'I want to keep Scotland and England together, but if the result [of an independence referendum] went the wrong way, from my point of view, then I would have to honour that because that is the only way to be open and honest with the people of Scotland, but I desperately hope it doesn't happen.'
His critics would have a field day, but whatever his changing positions, there can be no questioning of Mr Blair's integrity. His veracity, decency and dedication to a higher good than vulgar pragmatism have to be explicitly and grudgingly conceded. He has to be accepted as a man of unchallenged honour; it is heresy to suggest that, like most politicians, he has behaved like a charlatan. Mr Blair's integrity stands crystal clear for all of us to see and it has to be defended at all costs.
I beg your pardon???
Quite honestly, I'm a wee bit flabbergasted..."veracity", "integrity", "unchallenged honour", "higher good"...these are expressions I've never heard in connection with Mr Blair. You seem to be implying that Mr Blair is perfection personified...Don't you think it's a slight exaggeration on your part? I would certainly assume that you are being ironic, if I weren't aware of the fact that you tend to be exceedingly empathetic towards anybody who is subject to public criticism, which is indisputably a noble quality in you. However, I'm inclined to think that you romanticise Blair and fail to acknowledge that he isn't any better than the average politician as far as integrity is concerned. I'm not insinuating that Blair is pure evil as no-one is. He is a human being with positive and negative features who happens to be a politician. Most politicians are devious and opportunistic regardless of their alleged or real good intentions, and I'm afraid Blair is no exception to the rule, either. It has recently been proven by your dear Tony himself, for aught I know.
loic wrote:
Honestly, I like Mr Blair. He is eloquent and never fails to enliven the House during parliamentary sessions.
Don't let appearances deceive you, Loic. Eloquence is power but by no means a virtue.
loic wrote:
In contrast, Mr Brown's dour oratory is nothing to write home about. But he was at least a very keen footballer and rugby player in his youth so that could be a strong plus point for the new Prime Minister. This shows that he is a team player.
Imagine what would you do if all the potential candidates for the new PM had played football or rugby in their youth. Honestly, whom would you vote? Fortunately it's just a figment of the imagination that will never come true, thus you don't have to rack your brain to decide whom to elect...
PS: Sorry...I always forget that you can't vote British PMs... _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
PS: Sorry...I always forget that you can't vote British PMs...
Not really! Technically, I am able to vote in the British General Elections as I am a Commonwealth citizen. This privilege is spelt out pursuant to Section 3 of the British Nationality Act 1981. I just do not have a right to abode.
Yes, I think all Prime Ministers should have sporting blood in them. The last peer to live in 10 Downing Street Sir Alec Douglas Home, originally the 14th Earl of Home before he was obliged to renounce his peerage to sit in the House of Commons, played first-class cricket for the MCC as well as the Oxford University Cricket Club for a few years. As you can well see, his cricketing abilities were put into good use in the hustle and bustle of elections campaigning in his political years when his nimbleness ensured that he caught an egg hurled at him without breaking it.
As for my glowing report of Mr Blair, I did mention that I am averse to speaking ill of any departing statesman. Besides, I honestly feel that the outgoing Prime Minister genuinely had a reformist agenda for the country. Would you rather have him or say, Robert Mugabe?
Benjamin:
Thank you for pointing that out. If I have anything further to comment on the state of Scottish independence, I would. Not for the moment, though. I am feeling knackered and maybe a potent mixture of cocktail would be sufficient to revive me. Do you know how to concoct one, by any chance? _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Besides, I honestly feel that the outgoing Prime Minister genuinely had a reformist agenda for the country. Would you rather have him or say, Robert Mugabe?
I don't quite see your point here, other than that Tony Blair could have been worse. But it seems a bit of a false argument, because someone with policies comparable to those of Robert Mugabe (e.g. Nick Griffin from the BNP) was never even remotely likely to become British Prime Minister after at least the last three general elections.
Directly following the past three general elections, the main possible resulting prime ministers were:
1997
Tony Blair, Labour
John Major, Conservative
Paddy Ashdown, Liberal Democrat
2001
Tony Blair, Labour
William Hague, Conservative
Charles Kennedy, Liberal Democrat
2005
Tony Blair, Labour
Michael Howard, Conservative
Charles Kennedy, Liberal Democrat
Any other outcome would have been so extremely unlikely that it doesn't even seem worth thinking about what would have happened if, say, the BNP won the election, or the Greens won the election, or whatever.
Je ne parviens pas ŕ me décider : lequel des deux est le pus vulgaire — Blair ou Sarkozy ? Lequel des cinq devrais-je dire : Aznar, Bush, Berlusconi, Blair ou Sarkozy ? Je ne compte męme pas les deux bouffons de Pologne...
L'Occident est tombé si bas qu'aprčs avoir osé proposer Blair comme "président" de l'UE, il suggčre Blair comme sous-plénipotentaire auprčs du Moyen-Orient. Quel mépris pour nos voisins méditerranéens... Blair aprčs Wolfovitz. La guerre est pour bientôt, je le crains.
Je ne parviens pas ŕ me décider : lequel des deux est le pus vulgaire — Blair ou Sarkozy
Pardonne-mois mon cynisme, mais je crois que il y a une differance profonde entre Blair et Sarkozy : le francais de Blair n'est pas aussi horrifique que l'anglais de Sarkozy ...
D'ailleurs, je ne pense pas que "vulgaire" est le mot juste pour décrirer la personalité blairenne ... mais "bouffon", oui ...
loic wrote:
As for my glowing report of Mr Blair, I did mention that I am averse to speaking ill of any departing statesman. Besides, I honestly feel that the outgoing Prime Minister genuinely had a reformist agenda for the country. Would you rather have him or say, Robert Mugabe?
Benjamin wrote:
I don't quite see your point here, other than that Tony Blair could have been worse. But it seems a bit of a false argument, because someone with policies comparable to those of Robert Mugabe (e.g. Nick Griffin from the BNP) was never even remotely likely to become British Prime Minister after at least the last three general elections.
Agreed completely. Loic, this argument of yours seems to be the prime example of comparing apples and oranges. _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
Gordon Brown — Prime Minister; First Lord of the Treasury; Minister for the Civil Service; Leader of the Labour Party
Alistair Darling — Chancellor of the Exchequer; Second Lord of the Treasury
Jacqui Smith — Secretary of State for the Home Department
David Miliband — Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
Jack Straw — Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain; Secretary of State for Justice
Harriet Harman — Lord Privy Seal; Leader of the House of Commons; Minister for Women; Chair and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party
Catherine Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland — Lord President of the Council; Leader of the House of Lords
Those are the 'main' ones, I suppose. Incidentally, this now means that both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are Scottish. No-one has been appointed as Deputy Prime Minister. Here is the rest of the new cabinet:
Des Browne — Secretary of State for Scotland; Secretary of State for Defence
Peter Hain — Secretary of State for Wales; Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Shaun Woodward — Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
Alan Johnson — Secretary of State for Health
John Hutton — Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform; President of the Board of Trade
James Purnell — Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
Douglas Alexander — Secretary of State for International Development
Ed Balls — Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families
John Denham — Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills
Hazel Blears — Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Hilary Benn — Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Ruth Kelly — Secretary of State for Transport
Ed Miliband — Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; Minister for the Cabinet Office
Geoff Hoon — Chief Whip; Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury
Andy Burnham — Chief Secretary to the Treasury
Browsing through the pictures, I've arrived at the conclusion that an open mouth or strange teeth are prerequisites of members of the new government.
I'll ask you some questions if you don't mind.
Do you see any logic behind the decision to have two Scottish people in a prominent position in the cabinet? If it was a conscious decision at all...
Well, at least there will be no serious clash between the two politicians as both are Unionists. I'm not entirely sure about Mr Darling's affiliation but considering his Anglo-Scottish background and his occassional challenging of the SNP, it seems logical that he has become if was not predestined to be a unionist.
Speaking of Catherine Ashton, doesn't the very presence of an aristocrat in the Labour Party make the whole idea of "Labour" a bit inauthentic? I wouldn't cast doubt on the noblewoman's empathy towards and sympathy for the "plebs" but I'm not sure if she truly knows what being working-class or even middle-class is all about. (Not that Tory...erm...Tony Blair has first-hand experience of it, which he obviously doesn't.) That said, I would naturally assume an aristocrat to be an ardent Conservative...or furtively left-wing but to never admit to it in public, let alone join the party.
Do you *really* have a Minister for Women? (That was a rhetorical question, of course. I'm asking you because the very idea sounds extremely amusing, albeit perfectly justified.) Is it possible for a man to obtain such a position?
PS: Sorry for my occassional tongue-in-cheek remarks...I know that politics is too serious an issue to make light of. _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
Benjamin,
Is it true that Tony Blair is soon expected to announce that he is going to convert to Roman Catholicism?
Apparently, yes. His wife is a Roman Catholic, his children went/go to a Roman Catholic school, he is currently an Anglo-Catholic (i.e. an Anglican who is sympathetic towards the beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church) and he has apparently expressed interest in converting to Roman Catholicism in the past.
Will he convert to Labour one day ?
Benjamin wrote:
He has also announced his intention to establish an organisation that will bring together Christians, Muslims and Jews, and has spoken to the Pope for endorsement.
Blair ne manque pas de culot ! How dare he think he might do something not negative regarding interfaith issues (note that non-faith doesn't seem to be considered at all...) knowing that he triggered a bloody confessional war in Iraq ? Blair est un véritable Tartuffe !
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Anyway, I might have mentioned somwhere on this forum that I loved the way French people pronounce his name, giving his name a new meaning, i.e. "someone from the shit alley". 
